User talk:Veinor/Archive 5

please do not remove Spectrolab from SPS page
please do not remove Spectrolab from SPS page - it is not an advert Please do not remove Spectrolab from the Solar Power Satellite page - it is not an advert. I posted it, and I have no connection with the Spectorlab company. It is valid information to cite that the cells are ocmmercially available. Feel free to add references and citations to other data sheets if you can find them. thank you. Charles 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's valid, but is it necessary? It's like saying that you can buy snacks at Walgreens; why specifically Walgreens? There's no good reason. And the fact that snacks are commercially available is just common sense, anyway. Veinor (talk to me) 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is important to validate the claim that high efficiency cells are actually available. there are very few vendors who offer the high efficiency cells, where do you get the number of "hundreds" of cell vendors? Most of the cell vendors have very low efficiency, the Spectrolab cells are the highest on the market that I have seen. It is not an advert as I have no connection with the vendor.Charles 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Veinor, check out Mediation Cabal/Cases/ solar cell vendor citation. RJASE1 Talk  06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I probably wouldn't have found it for a while otherwise. Veinor (talk to me) 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Grade Scuffle
No, I'm not a member of the band. Give me an example of "notoriety." I've read plenty of articles of largely popular bands on here that don't claim notoriety, and their pages are still up. What has to be said about this one? Record sales? Number of tours? KurtTGS 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. It looked like you were, given your username and the fact that a band member is named "Kurt". In any case, the notability criteria for bands can be found at WP:BAND. Veinor (talk to me) 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurt is the name of the former drummer, and no, I am not him, oddly enough. Understandable though. KurtTGS 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Baptist Women in Ministry
Please see the revisions to the article. You now will be able to see that it has no connection with Anabaptists except in a remote historical sense. It's really connected to Baptist and Southern Baptist Convention. Can we undo any merge? I don't see any evidence of it in the Anabaptist article. Thanks. CME GBM 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Saget Is My Step-Dad
Sir, I'm part of and wanted to create an article about them... I'm sorry I don't know how to make the perfect article and give "notoriety". But I, Michael, just wanted people to hear about us... sheesh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killroger (talk • contribs). :
 * Please read the pages on autobiographies, conflicts of interest, Wikipedia not being a soapbox, and the notability criteria for music. Veinor (talk to me) 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pastebin Article
Hi: I have been working on cleaning-up the Pastebin article. Do you think that it would be possible to create a seperate "List of Pastebins" article? Either That, or add some more info to this current page, because it looks kind of bare. -Christopher Kraus 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it might be possible, if you capitalize it as "List of pastebins" and can keep it clean, akin to List of social networking sites. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to do so on Pastebin, though. Veinor (talk to me) 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I created something under the name of List of pastebins. Two days later (today) I can't find it. Do you have any idea of what happened to it [as an admin] -Christopher Kraus 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found out why here. My question is that if a list of Social Networking sites is allowed, then why not a list of pastebins? -Christopher Kraus 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's because of the format; you basically had yours as a list of external links, which Wikipedia is not. If you base it off of the format of List of social networking sites and start off by only using ones that have their own Wikipedia article already, you'll have a better chance of not getting it deleted. Veinor (talk to me) 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. The only thing is that I don't think any of those Pastebins have a Wikipedia article. How would I go about making some kind of Quick, Template-like, Stub-type of article that I could use for more-or-less all of the Pastebins on The List. -Christopher Kraus 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the best course of action here would be to write a quick blurb that includes proof that it's notable (which might be hard to do in some cases) and add website-stub to the bottom to indicate that it's a stub article about a website. Veinor (talk to me) 16:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PowerPoint animation
please do not move daft tv content from the powerpoint animation page!! this is not spam and i would like to advise you to look at the links before you delete! (i am a better mod than you - i should know) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dafttelevision (talk • contribs).
 * Hmm. How would you know how good I am at being a Wikipedia sysop, given that you are (pretty obviously) a relative newbie here? And remember that, while you may be a mod on your own site, you aren't one here. Please read the external link guidelines, in particular the "no blogs" sentence, and also WP:SPAM, which forbids advertising. Also, if you were that good of a mod, you would have read the sentence at the top of my talk page that tells you to sign your posts and add it to the bottom. You did neither. Veinor (talk to me) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

POINT
I think the tag is appropriate and should be on there - in as much as I think there is an actual need for such a tag, i'm not just putting it on there to... well, make a point - This is a serious problem and it has been raised multiple times on the talk page already by different people, just no-one's done anything about it. --Random832 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

please do not remove advanced e-waste solutions link on the e-waste page
please do not remove advanced e-waste solutions link on the e-wast pagee - it is not an advert I posted it, and I have no connection with the company. It is valid information to allow people to learn about recycling electroincs in california. The information allows people to know that there are recycling choices in california and helps to promote a green solution to the illegal disposal of electroincs. Feel free to add references and citations to other data sheets if you can find them. The company is free and is helping citys to develop recycling solutions and they are EPA certified. thank you. aa1717, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a project for California only, it's a world-wide collaboration. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Veinor (talk to me) 01:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

AFDs closed as merge
An AFD closed as merge is a variant on a keep close, because the content remains available for use. Whether to merge anything, how much to merge, and where to merge it are ordinary editorial decisions, subject to change through the usual editorial process. Deletion review doesn't get involved unless either the redirect is protected or the history was deleted (and thus lost for GFDL purposes). GRBerry 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm relatively new to this, so thanks. Veinor (talk to me) 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount
Hello Veinor, please send your real-name, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

The Rise of Indie
Fair enough, just thought that the amount of time they were around for and the speed at which they developed cult status might warrent a page to save someone at a later date. No worries though Rorykillhorn 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If they ever meet the notability guidelines laid out at WP:MUSIC, I'm not prejudiced against recreation. Veinor (talk to me) 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Zashley-x
Seems kind of harsh to indef block that user just for writing this. Especially without any discussion or warnings. I understand the suspicion, but they never even tried to edit an article. Is there more to the situation? (I only ask because I was removing the entry as unsuitable for AIV but had an edit conflict with you.)

Besides, maybe it is her. Who says actresses can't make spelling mistakes? ;-) Kafziel Talk 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing really more to the situation other than the impersonation. I agree that I probably did overreact; I think that blanking the userpage and unblocking might be a good idea. You? Veinor (talk to me) 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say just post an explanation for the block on her (?) talk page and see what she has to say. She can reply without being unblocked, so it can't hurt. Kafziel Talk 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tumblelog Issue
matthasalotof ideas Must be banned from the Tumblelogs entry, we should lock the Tumblelog page 68.188.227.210 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Protection of pages is generally not done unless there are many users with different IPs editing. Veinor (talk to me) 12:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your revert of Bodybuilding.
The reason I made some parts 'bold' opposed to 'subheadings' was due to the fact there simply wasn't enough info to warrant them being in their own sub heading. Moreover, The links you removed were already discussed and OK'd on the talk page. []. www.getbig.com, www.naturalbodybuilding.com, and www.bodybuilding.about.com were all OK'd as external links. They don't meet the criteria to be avoided per WP:EL which states "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising should be avoided." The links listed have negligible amounts of advertising at best. Please revert your reversion to my version so I don't have to revert it again. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that; I'd be glad to. Veinor (talk to me) 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed this link www.bodybuilding-pro.ro though because it wasn't even in english and because it did seem like an ad link. However the 'thetlab.com' link is basically a blog by a student at UCLA majoring in biomedical science which seems pretty educational. Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Orthomolecular.info
Hi

Why it is not possible to put the link orthomolecular.info on the orthomolecular medicine wikipedia web page ? The web site is not good enough ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.122.18.130 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Yeah, basically. There are external link guidelines, and blogs generally aren't allowed unless they're by a recognized expert in the field. Veinor (talk to me) 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is because I am an expert in the field of othomolecular medicine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.122.18.130 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Prove that you are the author of the blog and that the author of the blog is an expert. Veinor (talk to me) 15:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Ooops, I'm used to closing discussions that are all on one page (so the template goes under the header). Thanks for catching that. I assume you fixed my mistakes? John Reaves (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Veinor (talk to me) 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

About linking bjdoll.net in ball jointed dolls article
Hi, I'm sorry if you tought that it was spam, that web site has a wiki about bjds, with a link on the main page, and i tought it was relevant to the contents of the article. Is the only spanish wiki about bjd, super dollfies and such. Thanks for your attention, i'll wait for any word from you before linking the page again.
 * Well, this is the English-language Wikipedia, so links to content in other languages is of very limited use and only done as a last resort. Veinor (talk to me) 15:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, and sorry for the trouble.
 * No problem; there is a Spanish-language one at http://es.wikipedia.org if you'd prefer to contribute in that language. Veinor (talk to me) 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Veinor's removal of my external link
The link to http://www.woodbrookeestates.com is valid. Even though the website is under construction, it still contains relevant information, and I have re-inserted it into the article. Please don't remove this link again. Thank you! 172.131.123.36 16:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the provided information is about the subject of the article, Rossville, Staten Island; it seems to be just advertising for Woodbroke Estates. There are external link guidelines, and the link isn't following them. Veinor (talk to me) 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Veinor. As you can see, I'm back! Now knock it off with the threats, because if you continue to harass me, I'll report your conduct to the higher-ups at Wikipedia, and you will be the one who'll "be forced to not edit". By the way, I won't bother reverting your edits of my revisions of the Rossville, Staten Island article, as you are an unreasonable editor who seems to be taking my resubmissions of the http://www.woodbrookeestates.com link personally. I think that I will have much better luck dealing with another editor in the future. Now please leave me alone, ok? I don't want to know that you even exist! 172.163.158.75 16:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one making these comments on the talkpage. And I don't think you can legitimately claim that I am 'unreasonable' (see the edit summary) given that you have previously called me an asshole and a nerd on a power trip. Veinor (talk to me) 16:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What's wrong Mr. Bigshot Wikipedia Editor? Did I touch a nerve, by calling you an "asshole" and a "nerd on a power trip"? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, THAN IT'S A DUCK! 172.163.158.75 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What if it looks, walks, and types like a user who's going to be blocked if he makes another personal attack? Veinor (talk to me) 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh brother, here we go again! Don't waste your time by blocking me, as it is nothing but a minor inconvenience to me. To be honest, I really don't think that you have the temperament to be a editor here on Wikipedia. You should be showing a little more maturity and stop getting so upset at me, a person that you don't even know. It seems that you have a penchant for threatening people. That's a big mistake, as I said before, behavior like your will get you removed as an editor. Have a nice day! 172.163.158.75 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you come back, then you'll just get re-blocked. Veinor (talk to me) 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Bot
The page was vandalised, just reverted. Sorry if this was you blanking it without signing in- on a balance of probability, i doubted that was the case —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonomacdrones (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


 * It beat me to spotting my error and signing. Sorry. Jonomacdrones 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's OK, we all forget sometimes. And it wasn't me, it was just some vandal. Veinor (talk to me) 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

tigecycline
Please can you let me know why you removed the testsurveillance.com website link from the tigecycline entry?

The testsurveillance.com website allows users access to analyse the data obtained through the TEST trials, and so can allow people who are interested in tigecycline to see how effective it is against what they need to use it on.

I know that it requires registration, but putting that aside I don't see any other problem with putting this site on this page for people who are interested in tigecycline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xbrazilnutx (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Well... the external link guidelines say that any site requiring registration shouldn't be linked unless it has data of significantly higher quality that is also relevant:

(from WP:EL:) A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless:
 * The web site itself is the topic of the article, or
 * It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website.

I can't see how this content is especially useful, especially since the sponsor of the trials is the manufacturer of the drug, creating a conflict of interest. Veinor (talk to me) 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying it's a conflict of interest is fine - I agree that it can be seen this way. Personally I just see the site as a data resource for medical persons who are interested in how the drug performs against other drugs.
 * Well, the registration is the big problem here. Personally, I wouldn't object to a independently-funded site that doesn't require registration, but we don't have that. Veinor (talk to me) 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure if the link is back on the page, but if it is I'll edit it out. Bad timing in terms of you and me both editing the page perhaps.
 * No, it wasn't timing. I don't edit specific pages, I just see where the links are added and check them over. By no means is my authority final; I'm just a volunteer. Veinor (talk to me) 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Want to create a page for livinginperu.com
By example: Google.com and Yahoo.com have a page in wikipedia. Livinginperu.com is a portal in english for peruvians and expats. We have a growing community and is good for all to allow all people to know us more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lip-editor (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * First off, you shouldn't judge what is notable based off of other sites. The fact that other pages exist is not a valid reason to make another one. There are explicit criteria for what is and isn't notable (i.e., what should and shouldn't have an article for it). Also, I recommend that you do not create a page for it, given that you have a conflict of interest in the site (see here). Veinor (talk to me) 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the links you provided and now I understand why my solicitude can't be accepted. I know I have a conflict of interest. But may I add some links like: http://www.livinginperu.com/blogs/features/234 that wikipedia have in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori ? Sorry for any inconvenience and Thank You.
 * I can't see anything wrong with them as news links, just so long as you don't overdo it (i.e, only add to pages that don't already have good news sources). Veinor (talk to me) 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Purpose for removing external links?
I added a valuable link for user submitted reviews for different products, in this case linksys. What was the purpose for removing this link? You stated it is a non-encyclopedic source. The page you pointed out to me directly stated under section 3.2 Links to be considered "links to professional reviews." I do not see how this differs from the information I submitted. I do not take this as a warning for the information given was accurate and adequate to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhalverson (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Under links normally to be avoided: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.". And you can't really say that a wiki counts as a "professional review", especially since the main page states that it is "Designed to help normal people...add reviews of companies". Finally, removing warnings you don't agree with is a bad idea; just because you don't think you did something wrong doesn't mean you didn't. Veinor (talk to me) 20:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that the "professional reviews" quote applies to albums, books, movies, etc. I don't think you could consider Honda to be anywhere near that category. Veinor (talk to me) 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The information provided offers users to add reviews of products as well as professional in the specified field to add reviews. You stated "And you can't really say that a wiki counts as a 'professional review'", you do realize you are on a user submitted encyclopedia. For future reference I have reported this matter and the improper removal of links. The information submitted was valuable to the average person looking up Honda or Linksys information. The powers given to you are being abused and I intend to look into it. Rhalverson 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. That is why citing Wikipedia as a reference is not allowed. However, we can't even make a comparison between DontUse.org and Wikipedia, given the relative ages of the two. Wikipedia was started in 2001; your wiki was started yesterday. Also, you have a blatant conflict of interest; most of the contributions on dontuse.org are from a user named Rhalverson, who is obviously you. And I haven't actually used any of my shiny admin buttons yet, since you've remained civil and have been discussing this calmly with me. And, so that I know where to look so I can respond, who are you going report me to? ANI, MEDCAB, RF3O, or somebody else? Veinor (talk to me) 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

With the given information I can see how I have a conflict of interest, where is the best place to get VALUABLE resources than users that already use wikipedia and know how to edit information. If I wanted to create this information non-biased how could I go about do it. Rhalverson 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "where is the best place to get VALUABLE resources than users that already use wikipedia and know how to edit information"; I think you made a typo somewhere. If you're asking for a third opinion on this, you can go to the Mediation Cabal and ask there. Or you could bring it up on Talk:Honda or Talk:Linksys. Veinor (talk to me) 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove Stoere Binken Design
HI: Please do not remove Stoere Binken Design from Wikipedia. I don't mean to advertise for my company, but just want to inform the people about us. I've read the rules of engagement for Wiki, and didn't think there was anything wrong about my text. If you do think so, I'll rewrite it. No problem. Please let me do a suggestion and ask you for your approval, ok? Now I understand that you've edited my article before. I thought I made a mistake and put the old text back. I'm new to Wikipedia... CharactersFontFoundry 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See the discussion immediately below for my response; I think we can keep talking about the articles there, since any discussion will probably apply equally well to both. Veinor (talk to me) 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove Characters Font Foundry
HI: Please do not remove Characters Font Foundry from Wikipedia. I don't mean to advertise for my company, but just want to inform the people about us. I've read the rules of engagement for Wiki, and didn't think there was anything wrong about my text. If you do think so, I'll rewrite it. No problem. Please let me do a suggestion and ask you for your approval, ok? Now I understand that you've edited my article before. I thought I made a mistake and put the old text back. I'm new to Wikipedia... CharactersFontFoundry 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm rather concerned about the conflict of interest you have in this; unless there are two Rene Verkaarts, I don't think you should really create those articles. Whenever people create articles about themselves or other things that are closely related to them, they tend to come off rather badly written. I'd suggest you go to the drawing board. However, you will need to prove notability. Veinor (talk to me) 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with my username CharactersFontFoundry?
HI: I wanted to use the name 'characters', which is my global username for most of the sites I visit. Because this was already taken I used the second most logical name. No offence meant. If it bothers you I can just use my own name 'ReneVerkaart'. I have no other names that I 'want' to use, simply because they don't fit to me. CharactersFontFoundry 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense taken; it's nothing personal. It's just policy that all usernames must follow. You could use ReneVerkaart, though using your own name for a username is considered somewhat of a bad idea due to the fact that it is personal information. It is, however, your choice. By the way, spaces are allowed in usernames, so you can register 'Rene Verkaart' if you want to. Veinor (talk to me) 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * HI: I understand. I entered my pages to Wikipedia on advice from a friend (which name I shouldn't reveil or you'll remove him too (LOL)), who also wrote his own entry. Since the page is still there I saw no problem with entering the basic information about me. I just want to enter the most basic information and who can better do that than ME. The external site I entered were articles written about me, not by me. Would it be possible to set up a page with the name and location only, setting a kick-off for other people to fill in the rest? Or would this also be a conflict? Or do I need to go to the drawing board to do this? I'd like to add this text if possible:
 * Characters Font Foundry (2004) is an independent Dutch type foundry. It's founded by René Verkaart (1970), a graduate from the Academie Beeldende Kunsten Maastricht, a faculty of Hogeschool Zuyd.
 * == External links ==
 * Website Characters Font Foundy
 * 80.132.69.145 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably a conflict as well, since nobody has more 'interest', so to speak, in yourself than you. If you can prove that you satisfy the notability criteria, then I'd go to the drawing board with proof and they'll help you set up an article. Or, if you can't, you can always create one in your userpage (once you've re-registered an account). Veinor (talk to me) 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. But how do you prevent people entering information about themselves with two user accounts? I think there's always a cheat around it. I just wanted to do it open and clear.CharactersFontFoundry 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When people use first person (I, me), it's a big clue. Other than that, we can't strictly tell; however, if they have to write about themselves, odds are they're going to fail the notability criteria anyway. And over the time, Wikipedia has gotten very good at detecting this sort of thing, despite what the media may say about it (failure sells more than success). Veinor (talk to me) 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote my text in the third person, because I don't want to 'sell' myself, but just to inform of my existence. So there must be another reason that you've found and deleted my page. Perhaps I'm not important enough as a historical person to be on Wikipedia... YET. But I'll be back. Thanks for your time and help.CharactersFontFoundry 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I brought up the example of 1st person because sometimes people do that, not because I was saying that you did or should (you shouldn't). The reason I found it was that external link additions are monitored, and I happened to notice it. Nothing personal, if you understand me. And I'm always willing to help. Veinor (talk to me) 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Should I re-enter with another username? The page Characters Font Foundry is gone, so I could keep the name, no?CharactersFontFoundry 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You should still pick another name, even if the page isn't there. You could go with your real name if you wanted (though I wouldn't); the username policy has the full list of rules. Veinor (talk to me) 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove René Verkaart
HI: Please do not remove René Verkaart from Wikipedia. I don't mean to advertise for myself, but just want to inform the people about me. I've read the rules of engagement for Wiki, and didn't think there was anything wrong with my text. Would it be possible to add just the basic information about me? Please see my explaination above at Characters Font Foundry. I'd like to add a page with this information, if you are ok with that: René Verkaart (1970) is a Dutch Typo*Graphic Designer. He is co-founder of Stoere Binken Design (1995), a Dutch design company located in Maastricht (NL). He also founded Characters Font Foundy in 2004, an independent Dutch type foundry.80.132.69.145 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are notability for criteria for people, and it doesn't appear that the page asserted that you meet them. If you want, you can put that in your userpage. In any case, I didn't delete that page, it was Kafziel. Veinor (talk to me) 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Info on correctly creating an Oxy-Powder page
I can't find where to "talk" to you or where to input a new topic, header, comment or whatever. I'm writing in regards to the oxy-powder site you commented about "spam" or whatever. This is my first time trying to create a wikipedia page and I just wanted to talk about a great product I used. What if I remove any kind of sales material and refer to the product in third-person, neutral, strictly factual info, such as listing its intended purpose and ingredients with no external link? Maybe you can help me develop a page within your criteria that also describes this product as an object someone might be trying to find out about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leto Atreides II (talk • contribs).
 * This is the proper way to talk to me. You create a header by adding ==Whatever you want the header text to be== to the bottom. Also, don't forget to sign your comments with ~.
 * Anyway, on to your main question. If you can find reliable sources and stick to a neutral point of view, I think that the article would be OK. However, any claims of ability would need to be backed up by independent sources. Also, make sure that you yourself don't have a conflict of interest in Oxy-Powder (i.e., you don't work own a company that manufactures/sells it); if you do, then I recommend you not create the article. Veinor (talk to me) 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

GPS_Wildlife_Tracking
Hi Veinor, Responding to your comments on a recent edit to GPS_tracking. I agree with your comment and actually had also removed it, after adding a new "see also" link (a new page GPS_Wildlife_Tracking) but I think we must have both saved at the same time so you missed my removal. I would appreciate any feedback on that page instead.

The link you removed on the GPS_tracking is listed on that page as an external link. as it is referred to in the main article, along with the other major technology providers. The reason they are listed is to summarize some of the specialized wildlife hardware that each major vendor is the sole provider of. Perhaps it should be handled in a different manner? Suggestions are welcome. Cheers, Ding Dingfelder 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't see what extra they provide to the GPS tracking article (you can leave out the underscores). The external link guidelines caution against commercial links, and we don't need a link to everything that's mentioned in the article. Veinor (talk to me) 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the companies on the GPS_Wildlife_Tracking page do not in any way belong on the GPS tracking page. The only thing I was not sure about was whther or not the companies listed in the main article (because of the new GPS technology they have created) belong in the external resources section.  I suppose I could dig up some references to Sirtrack, Telonics, etc. and their technology (from peer-reviewed journal articles), but I am not sure that quantity of detail is required for this page.  It (journal references etc) would more likely belong on pages devoted to those companies wouldn't it?  I was avoiding creating pages for these companies themselves, as the last thing I want to do is to be seen as spamming.  Dingfelder 01:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that the journal references should probably be on the pages for those companies. Veinor (talk to me) 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, are you saying that "if" a journal reference was to be listed, it would belong on a company page? I'm not clear if a company page should be created at all (to avoid the spam guidelines)  Along those lines, on the GPS tracking page, there are several links listed in the "see also" section (Insight_USA,ESITrack,Inrix).  Are those appropriate pages (since they are just company ads)?  (I think there are a number of other companies in that same industry that could be considered equally deserving of having their own page) Dingfelder 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Company pages aren't necessarily ads as long as they're written with a neutral point of view. And I think we can remove the 'see also' links to specific companies, and leave the related concepts. Veinor (talk to me) 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

hi veinor
''I am enjoying wikipedia more and more as I read about how it works and what the rules are, I appreciate you xplaining to me about not putting external links unless properly put in to discussion first etc. happy weekend thanks again. i hope to contribute alot more soon!'' --Madonnasworld 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem; I'm always willing to help. Veinor (talk to me) 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning with regard to linking of budget-master.com to show a date-shifting spreadsheet
Hi Veinor,

I was alarmed and concerned by the harsh warning about spamming of budget-master.com when I made the entry regarding a spreadsheet with date-shifting and included 'like budget-master.com' and linked it, after following the linking format I saw accepted for Microsoft Excel and OpenOffice spreadsheets.

Date-shifting of a spreadsheet is a very valuable tool, and to my knowledge has never been done before - I have a patent pending - and I simply wanted those who read about it to see what it looks like in real life. I did not mean to spam, so I apologize.

Wikipedia is terrific, Thank you, Diane Richardson

Dianeinct 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we get a lot of spam on Wikipedia, and it's often hard to tell whether the person is acting in good faith or not. That's why we don't block on sight, and why different levels of warning exist. However, even people acting in good faith can get blocked if they repeatedly ignore the warnings that are left on their talk page. Veinor (talk to me) 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove link to Vision Boards Article: Step by Step User Manual
Hi Veinor,

The "buzz" right now is all about "The Secret", how the "The Law of Attraction" lets you simply "wish" good fortune and success into existence just by thinking about them. I'm an engineer and I have used Vision Board for 25 years in different wayy and techniques - computer sciences, personal improvement, business modeling, etc.

The intention of my article is to inform people that the Law of Attraction is not just simply "wish". Action and persistance. ACTION clinches the deal. Attraction gives you the opportunity... ACTION makes it YOURS!

I have eliminated all the links on the left side column to comply with the standards of wikipedia. I worked 20 years in the computer industry and Vision Board is a powerful tool to share with people and teach how the law of attraction works.

Veinor, feel the link should be added to the article. The purpose of my article is to share some of my researh on Vision Board since I was an engineering student.

Please take a look at my article mastermoves.com/visionboards.html and let me know your comments. I did not mean to spam, so I apologize.

Wikipedia is a valuble tool and I happy to be a contributor, Thank you, Oswaldo Koch

Oskoch 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In absence of other, better sources, I think we could leave the link for now. However, if you can find something about Vision Boards that cites reliable sources, I'd much rather have that than the current link. Veinor (talk to me) 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove the phpBB wiki link
The phpBB wiki is intended to become a phpBB encyclopedic source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.113.250 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, it's obviously very low-traffic and new, so it violates the external link guidelines. And wikis are never reliable sources, not even Wikipedia. Veinor (talk to me) 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Links
Veinor,

I've just added a comment to the Bram Stoker discussion page but now realise I should have responded here. I'm the co-founder and editor of a free on-line journal called The Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror studies. I've stupidly gone adding links to pages that I believe relevant to our site (eg Stoker, Le Fanu, Gothic lit, Horror fic) I never even realised I was being sent messages advising me to stop! My apologies. Can you tell me how I should go about placing links on pages that are relevant. Our journal is of a very high standard and I honestly feel it would be a good resource for people. Once again, my apologies for jumping ahead of myself.

IrishGothicJournal 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wouldn't suggest that you do so, due to your conflict of interest. I think that bringing it up on Talk:Bram Stoker is indeed the best thing to do in this case, as well as here. And are you saying that you didn't see an orange box saying that you have new messages? Because if you didn't, that's a pretty serious bug. Veinor (talk to me) 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Veinor, why is an external link to an on-line academic journal regarded as spam? I've had a look at it and it contains articles by respected Eng lit professors and doctors etc about Irish Gothic. It's not a commercial or shopping or pay site or tourist advert or promotional site. I can't see any purpose in deleting it. Colin4C 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The link adder has an obvious conflict of interest, and the link was being added to 7 different pages in as many minutes; this is almost never a good idea to do so. Veinor (talk to me) 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As you suggested on my talk page, I'll ask on the Horror/Gothic fiction and film pages. Although there are a number of 7,000 word essays on the site devoted to the work of one author oe text and as such I deemed them relevant to specific author's pages on Wikipedia (eg John Banville, Preacher, Company of Wolves, Le Fanu and Lovecraft). Again, my apologies for not replying to your messages I didn't even notice I was being messaged, until there were 5 of them... I'm sure there was an orange message box there all the time but I only noticed it then as I'm only new to the site and not familar with its layout etc. I understand your comment about not "a conflict of interests" which I assume to mean that I only intend to use Wiki as a means of advertising my own site. While I hope to prove this wrong over the weeks/months to come, I do think that the work I have done on The Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies is itself a valuable contribution you Wiki readers in links. IrishGothicJournal 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that your sole purpose editing here is to advertise; I'm saying that you had a conflict of interest when you added the link. Veinor (talk to me) 19:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think running the suggested link by individual page editors will clear the matter of conflict of interests up. Which I should have done in the first place if I wasn't so gun-ho.IrishGothicJournal 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Where has the cursing and telling me to suffocate and die gone? Posting insults and then deleting them is obviously an acceptable means of getting around the policies of Wikipedia.
 * Oh, that was someone else who was angry at me. It had nothing to do with you. It was added here, and I then blocked them (see their block log here). People get really angry at me sometimes, apparently. Veinor (talk to me) 20:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Charming! A lovely job you've got!IrishGothicJournal 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I really don't care about stuff like that. I just remove it and then give them a nice block for their trouble. Veinor (talk to me) 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Joe Robinson (comedian)
An editor (apparently the brother of the subject) has recreated this page again. Earlier today, I'd afd'd it as the editor had contested the speedy. Though I agree that it's speedy-able until a source is provided, I think it would be a courtesy to allow the AFD to proceed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Snap. FiggyBee 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah; when I saw, there wasn't an AfD tag on the page. I'll leave it. Veinor (talk to me) 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Joe Robinson (comedian)
Hi Veinor,

Congrats on your recent adminship. :) I noticed you deleted the abovementioned article earlier today, but you didn't post to or close the discussion on AfD.  Anyway, it's been reposted (again) by the same user.  If you redelete it, perhaps you could salt it and post a note on the creator's talk page? Cheers, FiggyBee 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See above.

Please restore recent edits to "Lava lamp" entry
Dear Veinor,

Your reversal of my recent edits to the "Lava lamp" entry restores inaccuracies in this article. My changes reflected that although some people may refer to motion lamps as "lava lamps," such references are incorrect. Even if "lava lamp" is the more common usage, the usage is not correct because Haggerty Enterprises, Inc. owns trademark registrations for LAVA and LAVA LITE. These registrations can be viewed at the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov by searching for these marks under the drop down menu for trademarks. These registrations provide a reliable source for my edits. In comparison, your assertion that "lava lamp" is "common usage" is not "attributable to a reliable source" in accordance with Wikipedia policies. This may be your opinion, but the references to "lava lamps" is this entry are still inaccurate in light of the federal trademark registrations owned by Haggerty Enterprises. "Lava lamp" is not a generic term for motion lamps. Use of "lava lamps" in this manner is inaccurate and incorrect. Attorneys for Haggerty Enterprises, Inc. MBFWiki 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)MBFWiki
 * I searched that site, and I found a trademark for 'Lava Lamp'... but neither were owned by Haggerty, and neither were for the subject of the Lava lamp article. They are registered to Ingram Enterprises, Inc. and Alberta Ltd. The trademark I believe you are referring to is under 'lava lite'. Veinor (talk to me) 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your search of the USPTO records was incomplete. You can also search by registration number, which will turn up the following U.S. trademark registrations owned by Haggerty Enterprises: Reg. No. 2121684 for the LAVA mark for "electrical, novelty lighting fixtures" and Reg. No. 2972900 for the LAVA BRAND and Design mark for "ornamental novelty lamps; bases for ornamental novelty lamps, globes for ornamental novelty lamps," and Reg. No. 0852625 for the LAVA LITE mark for "ornamental electrical device in the form of a lighting unit or a lamp." These trademark registrations are directly relevant to the subject of the "Lava Lamp" entry. I also direct your attention to the U.S. statutes, specifically 15 U.S.C. 1057(b), which states that a certificate of registration is "prima evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate . . . ." You can view this law at http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1057.html. Now that I have provided you with references to reliable sources, i.e. U.S. trademark registrations and U.S. law, I respectfully renew my request that you restore the edits to the "Lava Lamp" entry to correctly reflect Haggerty Enterprises' trademarks and remove the inaccurate references to "lava lamp" as a generic term. MBFWiki
 * Again, the phrase 'lava lamp' has become generic; see, for example, here, here. Reg. no. 0852625 is irrelevant, as the phrase "lava lite" is not used. And the phrase "lava lamp" is not being used for commerce here.
 * Just to clear a few things up: I am not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia for this, I am in no way an agent of the Wikimedia foundation, and legal threats are forbidden. Veinor (talk to me) 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Veinor,

These comments are not a threat of legal action. I cite the law and the U.S. trademark registrations as sources for the edits that I seek in accordance with Wikipedia's policies regarding providng attribution to a reliable source. I fail to see how either of the links you provided show that "lava lamp" is a generic term. The first link is for "How Liquid Motion Lamps Works." This supports my contention that the generic term is "motion lamps." The second link is to an entirely unrelated article on Fox Sports. Further, a search of Merriam-Webster's online dictionary reveals NO definitions for "lava lamp" as shown at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lava%20lamp. I have provided you with multiple reliable sources that support the edits that I made to the "lava lamp" entry. In contrast, you have provided no reliable sources that support you decision to reverse the edits that I supplied. Again, I respectfully request that you restore the edits I made as these are "attributable to a reliable source" in accordance with Wikipedia policies.MBFWiki 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)MBFWiki
 * I recognize that you have not made any legal threats. I am merely informing you of this policy. The first article does indeed later refer to the object as a "lava lamp", both in the URL (which ends in lava-lamp.htm) and in the body ("The lava lamp has been a cultural icon since the 1960s."). The second one uses the phrase "lava lamp", instead of "motion lamp": "What the boss really wants is for the NHL to work like a lava lamp." And Merriam-Webster reveals no definitions for "liquid motion lamp" or "motion lamp", either. The trademark for the brand name LAVA is just that, a trademark for the brand name. It could be that the word 'lava' is being used as a noun describing molten rock, (i.e., a lava lamp is a lamp that contains 'lava'). Veinor (talk to me) 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

MBFWiki, I don't see how these trademarks have any bearing on the article at all. It uses the term "Lava lamp", not "lava lite". Secondly, the term "lava lamp" cannot be incorrect. What people call a thing is its name. --Yath 06:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eliot Bernstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Iviewit. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I deleted neither of these. Veinor (talk to me) 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

'Twisted Arcade'
Apologies as it was started by a member so I sought to clean it up, and make it accurate, I would also request it to be here as it has significant history which applies to the festivities being held for it and its affiliates in the Aberdeenshire area of Scotland later this year. It just slow process checking back to ensure that the data about it is accurate. Though I would like to try and keep it non-biased advertising and purely factual. --TwistedArcade 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to prove notability using reliable sources. Just because it has some festivities (how large are they? who organized them?) in part of a country doesn't make it notable. Also, you need to change your username; this one will probably be blocked soon for violating the username policy (no names of web sites/businesses). Veinor (talk to me) 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A little help would be nice ^_^ how exactly do I do that? As in change the username, I have all the details to add about the site, although it will take a short while, the festivites involve music of different artists from the area and this page was to act as a slight guide and background for it. It should be a few hundred people at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TwistedArcade (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, you go and find if any major news outlets (I'm not familiar with what those are in Scotland) have covered Twisted Arcade or the festivals. They need to be independent of Twisted Arcade (i.e., no conflicts of interest), and it must be more than just a passing mention (i.e., no one paragraph blurbs). Veinor (talk to me) 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh ok, no problem, that would be a good plan, this article would be apt for deletion in that case until more sources develop, which shouldn't take too long to happen, then the sandbox can be used rather than having a user jump straight into it. write back? --TwistedArcade 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest creating a subpage; create a new user account (so this one won't get blocked [also, let me know the username so that I know who to talk to in the future]), and then create the page at User:/Twisted Arcade . For example, I'd use User:Veinor/Twisted Arcade (but don't use mine.) Veinor (talk to me) 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, that would be much easier than going into a direct article, and any article on it made by anyone until then can just be deleted until there are verifiable sources. A highly commendable moderator you are for this tip! I will postpone the creation of a new account until tomorrow though as sleep seems a favourable option as of just now. --TwistedArcade 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.
I'm simply moving something from another page to the disambiguation page. Check The history of True North. By the by, the link already existed on that page. Thanks for the kneejerk spam warning, though. 70.91.178.185 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! The link made it look really odd, as none of the other entries have links (and they shouldn't). Veinor (talk to me) 18:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to look a little harder. This line is also on the disambiguation page...

True North (band), a hardcore band from Gainesville, Florida, formed by ex-members the Florida emo-violence band Palatka


 * ... with a clear link on the end. 70.91.178.185 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed that one, as well as all the other redlinks (except the book). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and none of the redlinks made any claims at notability. Veinor (talk to me) 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As delicious as that sounds, that's irrelevant to this conversation. My point is, there have been at least two statements you've made and at least one assumption you've made that have all been false. Please be a bit more careful; from a review of your talk page, you appear to have a number of people contesting your little reign of terror on external links. Thanks. 70.91.178.185 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But you don't know if the complaints are legitimate. You yourself have made a false assumption there. You don't know that the people have read and understand WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, et al. If I understand you correctly, your argument is like saying "Well, some people think that the Earth is flat, so there's no real consensus that it's round." Or did I misunderstand? Veinor (talk to me) 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You did. I stated something factual that can be proven, i.e. You have a number of complaints against you. I said nothing about whether they were right or wrong. Should I point out that your assumption about my assumption was false? Silliness aside, my point was that you revered my edit within 60 seconds, and failed to note other factors (including existing content on that disambiguation article) that affect my edits. You "warned" me about spam, and your subst:ed template prattled on about how Wikipedia would not benefit the search engine results of the linked site, thus inferencing that I was somehow related to the site and would benefit personally. Once again, this is false, offensive, and detrimental to editors that do actually edit in good faith. I'm afraid I won't have much more time to quibble about this, I do have a day job and it requires my attention. 70.91.178.185 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, when you use a phrase such as 'reign of terror', it leaves little doubt in my mind as to what you think of my link removal efforts. And the search engine results are part of the template; there's no 'don't include search result section' option in there. You yourself seem to be dangerously close to failing to assume good faith with me. Veinor (talk to me) 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it leaves the whole world blind, at least we'll all be even, eh? 70.91.178.185 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the way you view it, then yes. By the way, please stop reverting my modification up above. The extra space makes the talkpage scroll off to the right, and the edit does not in any way modify your words. Veinor (talk to me) 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Links that were removed from SuperPower2 Entry
Links to SuperPower2.net, the SuperPower 2 Community at ForumPlasma, and the Realism 2.0 Mod should not have been removed. The Realism 2.0 Mod is a revolutionary mod for the game and its predecessor, Realism 1.6, has been downloaded by over 2,000 players. It is the most talked about Mod for the game and acts as an unofficial expansion to the game. It is hosted by ForumPlasma and SuperPower2.net. If these links can not be permitted, then the other links should be removed as well.

71.206.147.227 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Superpower2.net does not resolve, nor does www.superpower2.net. The forumplasma link violates the external link policy; forums generally are not allowed. And you have not offered proof of your assertions that Realism 2.0 is the "most talked about Mod" and "acts as an unofficial expansion." And the other links are gone now. Veinor (talk to me) 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the site is currently down. I will re-submit the link when it is back up. See here: http://www.forumplasma.com/forumdisplay.php?f=102 Over 10,000 views to the main topic. You can also find the download on several download sites and it has been downloaded thousands of times. Proof of the majority of downloads is unfortunately on the site that is currently offline.

71.206.147.227 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's 10,000 views on a topic that's about 14 months old; that's about 23 per day. Interesting, but not exceedingly high. The point is that forums aren't necessarily a reliable source, since anybody can post anything on them. Just like Wikipedia (we don't cite ourselves as sources). Veinor (talk to me) 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Absinthe in popular culture
Welcome to Wikipedia. The edit I made to this page was in fact about a very popular instance of absinthe in: popular culture. Using generic link removal text clearly without researching the issue is not helpful. Thanks.
 * Can you prove that the absinthe spoon site is notable? To do so, you need to find non-trivial (i.e., more than just a one-paragraph blurb) mentions in reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean like gizmodo, engadget, shinyshiny, geeksugar, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danzarrella (talk • contribs) 02:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Think CNN, CBS, FOX, MSNBC, etc. Also, I have to ask why you 'welcomed' an admin? Veinor (talk to me) 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So nothing should be in wikipedia if it has not gotten mainstream television news coverage? Your question seems more about ego than the subject at hand, so i'll ignore it in the interests of civility.Dan Zarrella 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's generally a pretty good guideline, yes. And I'm honestly curious: were you trying to prove a point, or did you just copy it and forget to take out that part, or did you just not know, or what? Veinor (talk to me) 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that we were discussing an addition to a page about absinthe in popular culture, you mean to tell me that everything mentioned on that page (songs and radio shows included) has been covered by mainstream television news and is more notable than the spoon?Dan Zarrella 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't mean to imply that it just has to be television. Major print newspapers are good sources as well (not tabloids). Web sources are when it starts to get kinda tricky. The 'arts & literature' section deals with classic artists, such as van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, etc. I could go on, though there is probably some stuff that should be deleted. However, that is besides the point. The point is that you have to show mainstream media coverage, and it'd probably be better to create a whole new article, using reliable sources and include a brief mention on the popular culture page. I don't think any one reference got more than a few sentences, let alone a paragraph and an external link. Veinor (talk to me) 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably best to continue this on the talk page of the article in questionDan Zarrella 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Veinor (talk to me) 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Major print newspapers are good sources as well (not tabloids)." so a reference to the boston globe or the new york times would be ok, but the herald or the daily news would not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.19.117.47 (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Which 'Herald' and which 'Daily News'? There's at least 10 of each. Veinor (talk to me) 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Boston Herald and the New York Daily News, both are tabloids66.238.195.195 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

VX30
Please advise why our post is any different from that of Quicktime. JN VX30 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the entire 'key product features' section makes it read like an advertisement, as does "VX30 helps organizations around the world deliver media rich content to IP-connected viewers through Java-enabled browsers, eliminating cost and complexity of third-party media players." does too. Also, you need to prove notability using reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your point, but I am discussing the new article I posted today. It displays the following message:

 This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion. '' Maintenance use only: {{subst:md1}} &#123;{subst:md2|pg=|text=}} &#123;{subst:md3|pg=}} [ log]

AND is not available when searching Wikipedia for VX30. I will change our username shortly. Please advise on today's post and why it has not yet been approved? JN VX30 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On another subject, why is the Cherry OS article on Wikipedia acceptable? Are blogs considered viable sources? JN VX30 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The new one is being deleted because you put it on your, which is intended for information about yourself (see mine). As for the CherryOS article, I don't think we can really say that blogs are good sources. However, I think that being picked up by Slashdot and Wired does make for enough notability. And let me know when you've created a new account and are ready to stop using the VX30 one so I can block it without inconveniencing you. Veinor (talk to me) 23:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Slashdot is notable, but digg, gizmodo, and engadget are not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danzarrella (talk • contribs).
 * They're all notable in and of themselves, it's reliability that's the main problem. Digg allows basically anything, so that's out. But Slashdot at least provides links to good sources. As for the other two, I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to say no to blogs in general. Regardless, there is enough coverage to ensure notability, and eWeek picked it up as well.
 * By the way, are you User:VX30? I need to know so that I can block that account without being accused of blocking to get an advantage in a discussion. Veinor (talk to me) 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to create a new account right now...hopefully it will go smoothly. Thanks for your help. JN VX30 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Veinor (talk to me) 00:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Cherry OS...Slashdot is is a forum and not really a news agency that has any form of liability. Totally biased, one-sided opinion not supported by facts and loaded with conjecture and self-promotion. We strongly feel it should be removed? JN VX30 00:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is considered very bad form to edit a page about a company you work for/own/are otherwise related to, due to the conflict of interest it creates. There are many instances of people being blocked and banned from doing so. And the Slashdot article provides several illuminating links; we are not using the various comments for information (not even the ones marked '5, Informative'). Veinor (talk to me) 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Have I been blocked/banned from uploading articles? JN Videostreaming 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. And please pick a username and stick with it; having multiple can cause confusion and allegations of sockpuppetry. Is this the one you want to use from now on? Veinor (talk to me) 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the username I want to use. Sorry for the prior confusion. Why hasn't my VX30 article under this username been published yet? It refers to "articles lack sources" but I reference credible, third-party source? Please help. Thanks! JN Videostreaming 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you been creating it in User:Videostreaming? The problem is that that's your userpage; you need to create it at VX30. I deleted that particular page because it was basically still an advertising. I'm honestly not sure what to do at this point. I'd suggest putting on your talk, preferably referencing this discussion (link to it by typing User talk:Veinor ). Veinor (talk to me) 00:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help me to create the VX30 page currently not posted under this username? That's all I want to do. Should I cancel this account and start one with Username VX30? Please help...thank you. JN Videostreaming 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The question of how to create a page is asked many times, and so we have a dedicated page to answer that: WP:CREATE. And I really advise against creating that page, due to your conflict of interest. Veinor (talk to me) 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright!
Don't block me, I quit! There might be a few more before I posted this that you haven't seen yet, thats it, I m done! Virchu 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I got all of them. I won't block you for that, since you stopped after I gave you the final warning. May I ask why you were adding that link on totally unrelated pages and labeling it "Wikipedia's Website Of The Day"? Veinor (talk to me) 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Useful link being removed
I have submitted a link to this site, which help people find jobs in the UAE. The link is being removed every time it's submitted. I went through other resources, some of which are commercial sites, yet they are displayed permanently. There is no ads, no charge, nothing except for information here.....

Andy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.207.18 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I see that, but the UAE page isn't just about Dubai, it's about all of the emirates. And I don't even think it'd fit on Dubai, since Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. And just because there are other links there doesn't mean they should be there. I just removed a lot of them (about 10-20). Veinor (talk to me) 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

paid to surf article
Hello, I added the AGLOCO section to the paid to surf article and I also added a LIST of relevant websites that discuss AGLOCO and promote it.

I realize that referral links are not allowed, and I have even REMOVED referral links that others have placed inside the AGLOCO section. 68.2.100.245 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 68.2.100.245
 * I see that now, it's just that it looked like you added them here. The point still stands, however, that sentences such as "Since AGLOCO launched, there have been hundreds of blog posts and websites created that discuss and rave about the new service." read more like advertisement than a good Wikipedia article. Also, it's not necessary to link every single occurrence of the company's name to its own article, and that the external links are unnecessary; the article is about paid surfing in general, not AGLOCO. Veinor (talk to me) 20:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not add the referral links. But I did remove them once I saw that someone else had added them. I do agree that the sentence you have quoted sounds a bit advertorial, so I don't have a problem removing that sentence. What if I created a new article about "AGLOCO" specifically and then added a "See also" section from the "paid to surf" article? Would that be more acceptable?

Donald Blakeslee deletion
Hello, I know of this individual from my military training. He gets hits on Yahoo: Donald Blakeslee search. He is famous pilot. I was doing RC patrol and just saw the deletion flash across the screen. May I ask why it was deleted? Could I re-create it if a version still exists? I will watch your talkpage for your reply. Thanks, Morenooso 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can find some reliable sources. Admins have access to the content of deleted pages; you want a copy under User:Morenooso/Donald Blakeslee so you can make sure it satisfies WP:BIO before it goes into mainspace? Veinor (talk to me) 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please create the subfile for me. I will find at least three and let you know when I am ready to re-post it. Thanks. Morenooso 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that I necessarily object to an article on the person per se, it's just that when the entire content for almost a month has been "American fighter pilot. Commander of the Fourth Fighter Group." and a couple stub tags... it looks odd. Anyway, it's recreated. Veinor (talk to me) 03:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will begin work on it right now. I will hopefully have something meaningful in about an hour. Morenooso 03:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a peek - User:Morenooso/Donald Blakeslee. Morenooso 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good for a stub, maybe a bit more in-article proof that he's notable (e.g, what has he done that's important)? Veinor (talk to me) 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a long story but basically he started out as a Lieutenant; flew as a Royal Canadian AF pilot for the British RAF and by the end of WW II flew with the AAF. He fought in a famous battle or two and the wikilink to the 4th Fighter Group shows that history. If I remember USAF history correctly, there was something or someone who prevented his rise to general. If you look at this Blakeslee URL, he scored 15.5 Aces which makes him a notable pilot. 10 kills were required to become an Ace. That was lowered after Korea because the jet war made five victories harder to achieve. I am limited tonight but the other source has a lot of his background info with the one listed in this paragraph his military bio. I just searched the USAF site and he is not listed which is highly unusual because he was required reading at one time. He served over 30 years and basically was a leader from the AAF to the USAF transition. Morenooso 04:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He is on the this list as a red wikilink: List of World War II air aces with 14.5 kills. Morenooso 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and move that into mainspace, then. Keep working on it if you want.
 * I will but need some time. I have to drive 400 miles tomorrow to attend to a personal matter. My wiki time will take a hit. Could you keep the article on your watchlist, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morenooso (talk • contribs)
 * Duh, I see it now. Morenooso 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. I think we all need it :) LaMenta3 03:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Shadowbot1
Clarification: Shadowbot is run by an individual who goes by the username of Shadow1, hence the username. And freewebs links are generally not allowed, as they are not considered to be reliable sources due to their lack of peer-review. Veinor (talk to me) 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Veinor, can you make an exeption for a good literary magazine, please? Even if its site in on freewebs.com? Take a look at it: www.freewebs.com/shamrockhaiku ; make sure that it isn't a commercial site. So what's the risk? If you allow it, you'll make a bunch of haiku-loving paddys happy :) Irishhaiku 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "What's the risk", eh? Well, look at it this way. I ask you to give me a penny. It's just a penny, so you do so. Then I ask you again, and again, until you're broke. Each one request was reasonable and seemed harmless, but together they dealt a lot of harm. Same sort of thing here. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and that means we have to be strict. Veinor (talk to me) 04:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's unfair Veinor, and you probably know it. Were you a lawyer, you would have learnt that judges deal with each case on an individual basis. Any other approach would disqualify them immediately. This is exactly the case where you should have stepped in to allow a good link. And don't forget that if Wikipedia ignores most of the people, then most of the people will ignore Wikipedia. Why on Earth should anyone want to use your Haiku Journals page if you list less than a quarter of them and prevent your users from updating the page? This is ridiculous. I wonder how can I appeal? Irishhaiku 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware that links are dealt with on an individual basis, thank you. A common argument for link inclusion is "Well, if link X is there, then mine should be too." Here's another analogy that might seem more apt. One person throws a water bottle into a lake and figures "Well, it's just one bottle; it won't hurt." But thousands of people do this, and hundreds of fish die. And people would look at Haiku to find out about... haiku. Maybe they don't want to see a journal. Besides, you still have to show why your link provides information that cannot be obtained from the other links, or any of the links on the linked-to page at DMOZ. Veinor (talk to me) 04:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can appeal by making your case on Talk:Haiku. Veinor (talk to me) 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're an interesting kind of editor Veinor. For you, listing a literary magazine is like throwing a bottle into a lake? This is a nice thing to say. You probably don't think much of culture and education. What are you doing here, then? Enjoying yourself and your big EGO? Is it not obvious for you that people can't obtain information on the haiku movement in Ireland from any other link? And what a wonderful logic: "People want to read about haiku. Maybe they don't want to see the journal." If you think so, why keep the curtailed list of journals on that page? I am utterly disappointed with you Veinor. Do you ever admit that you've made a mistake, or are you one of those who think they are right, even if they're wrong? My advice is, take a good look at yourself. My verdict: Veinor is not fit to be an editor; Wikipedia deserves a better one. Irishhaiku 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are undoubtedly better editors than me; I've only been actively editing for about four months. But, by and large, the Wikipedia community has apparently found me a good enough one to make me an administrator. Removal of administrator privileges is rare, and will certainly not happen because of this. Anyway, on to the body of your article. You say that people can't obtain information about the Irish haiku movement on any other site; but the article is not about Irish haiku, it is about haiku in general. And personally, I'm not terribly sure about whether the list of journals should be on there at all. I've admitted to mistakes; honestly, did you expect me to say that I'm stubborn and refuse to admit it when I'm wrong?
 * As for what I'm doing here... I'm just removing external links for the most part, though I have been branching out into other admin-y things. My advice is: remember to remain civil. Veinor (talk to me) 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BBDO: Question regarding deletion of 'brands and offices' section
I had updated the rag-tag list of BBDO worldwide offices (that has existed on Wikipedia for quite some time) with a more complete and organized encyclopedic listing to provide a better reference to readers/searchers as well as to provide the hooks into deepening the information about each region. However, I got a message that it has been deleted within a few moments up posting with the message "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I wouldn't consider my contribution "indiscriminate." Could you please review? --Thanks Inoc 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the list was larger than the rest of the entire article, and it included every single brand, whether they had achieved notability on their own or not. That seems pretty indiscriminate to me. Veinor (talk to me) 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So the Wikipedia is intended to be an abridged encyclopedia? I'm sorry... I'm new at contributing to the Wikipedia -- here I thought I was doing a good thing, providing the structure that would allow others to contribute and collaborate, since I don't have the interest or energy to document the notoriety and history of every office of a global organization. Inoc 17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's 'abridged' in the sense that it's not a compilation of every single piece of knowledge; for example, people's autobiographies tend to get deleted, as do pages about their garage band. And we keep in mind that it's the intent that matters; nobody's going to punish you just for trying to help (unless you do something wrong repeatedly after being warned). Veinor (talk to me) 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

usertalk:luftmann
Your temporary blocking of my account was misguided. I am trying to get a proper reference for a dispute, and your heavy-handed tactic merely interferes with finding the source of the disputed quotation. The blocking tool is used too often on this site and tends to lessen it to a biased, one-sided exchange of information. In this case, the reference to 'the rarest habitat in Washington', as I was changing it, is already cited (verbatum) as a referenced footnote on the site [6], from the organization's own website (tahomaaudubon.org). The organization contradicts itself on a second website (conservationnw.org), so I am trying to get the original reference from the Fish and Wildlife Service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luftmann (talk • contribs).
 * I see zero blocks on your record, as well as zero messages on your talk. Basically, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that I've blocked you. What's your IP address? Veinor (talk to me) 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note and thanks
Hi, I see that you have been working against Spamming on Wikipedia (a thankless task, so thanks). The user "Guile3d" (who also seems to be writing under 200.140.204.53, 200.138.52.243, and possibly others) is posting not so subtle ads for something called "Guile 3D Studio" ("Considered one of the best"..."great"...and posting information about t(his) product in unrelated or vaguely related articles. I've changed some of the more egregious entries and posted that companies aren't supposed to post promotional materials about themselves on Wikipedia, under the good faith assumption that (s)he may not realize this. However, since past experience has taught me that politely pointing out Wikipedia's NPOV policy usually results in a response of vitriolic spamming, I thought I'd start documenting the possible problem now...hopefully there won't be any further abuses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.152.143 (talk • contribs).
 * Wow. Thanks for this are far and few between, especially from IPs. I really appreciate it. I looked at the Microsoft Agent page and you were right. I took out a couple of bad links and deleted an image without a good rationale. I'll keep it on my watchlist. Veinor (talk to me) 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up the article even further; it needed it. But I'm afraid as I write this Guile3d is back at it again. I'm also guessing this isn't a surprise to you. I have a feeling that, besides the above listed IPs, this user may also be using 71.241.214.230. This address has also just been used to post Spam links to a similar product in similar/same articles Guile3d uses.

Thanks
Thanks for your comments on the Southern Mafia DRV. It's too easy to get caught up in intellectual debates and I was sore tempted to jump in and try to re-explain the whole bit about how someone's philosophical ideologies shouldn't preclude them from engaging in debates. Your answer there was pretty succinct and, coming from an admin, hopefully somewhat more authoratative than anything I would have come up with :) Anyway, I know it's no big deal, but you saved me from a bunch of typing back there, and sometimes it's refreshing to see someone else make the point you were going to, first!  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem; half of spam reversion is the dealing with complaints, so I tend to have a pretty good idea of how to get my point across. Veinor (talk to me) 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

please do not remove my content again
I don't care about anyone’s external links, but I feel you are vandalizing my definitions by reverting them all the way back to their original state (i.e.; short, with no wikilinks) instead of just removing external links that others have added. I reverted it back 2 days ago because your brainless editing had removed all trace of anyone else ever having looked at or linked to the definition of Data maintenance at all. Please use more discretion in your paladinic charge to remove the scourge of the unrighteous from the pages of wiki.

Thanks Harkonlucas 14:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-integrated a bit of your 'comments' into the main paragraph and wikified them. However, self-references such as "the original author" or referring to previous content in the body of the text goes against the manual of style. Also, I removed the references to the example, because it would be absolutely meaningless without a further explanation. Now, if we could get a live screencap of something that's not terribly difficult to understand, that might be a good idea for an image. Finally, I removed your signature per WP:OWN. And I request that you not refer to good-faith edits as 'vandalism'. Finally, remember that wikilinks require two brackets (like this ). Veinor (talk to me) 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Help locking an article
this article Third Hokage, Forever... keeps getting vandalised because of something that happend to the episode while airing on a channel, someone suggested to lock it, i put a lock tag on it but apparently it doesn't work, i believe only administrators can lock articles, could you lock it so that only registered users can edit it?-hotspot
 * I'll keep an eye on it; protection is generally only done in cases of repeat vandalism from many different IP addresses, which doesn't appear to be going on here. Veinor (talk to me) 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Myspace?
Hey, I seem to remember reading somewhere that WP has taken to discouraging links to Myspace pages in external links and references, but I can't seem to find where I read it. I checked WP:EL, WP:ATT, WP:SPAM and a couple of other policy pages that I thought might contain this info, but it wasn't there. I also thought I might have read it on your talk page as you are sort of the "External Link Police." Anyway, I obviously couldn't find it, as I'm now asking you what the policy is. I came across a few articles using Myspace pages as references, and they made me go, "Hmmm." I left the links for now, as I wasn't sure. (Yeah, yeah...WP:BOLD and all, but some of the recent editors of the pages are kind of hotheads and I've pissed off enough people for one week.) LaMenta3 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:EL, number 10, is 'Social networking sites (such as Myspace)', so there's your justification. However, there's a manner of considerable debate regarding linking to 'official' myspaces; some believe that they should be included, while others think that there's too high of a risk for impersonation. Myself, I leave them, but do not object to their removal. Veinor (talk to me) 15:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Apparently I need to either learn to read or get my eyes checked, haha. I've seen a few too many impostor myspaces for my own good, not to mention I have bad feelings toward the site in general. I'm inclined to think that even an "official" myspace probably wouldn't be appropriate as a reference in an article to back up any sort of fact, however I might still be ok with one as an external link, you know what I mean? Anyway...I'll probably go take a second look at those now. Thanks again! LaMenta3 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)