User talk:Whollabilla

Thank you for experimenting with the page Mac OS X v10.4 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Yamla 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

captcha
Whollabilla, hope I am right here - if not please don't eat me.

This is concerning the article:

captcha for beginners

- which you have decided is spam.

Where I come from, it's not up to me to prove what you stating but should be up to you to at least offer a reason why Captcha for beginners is spam.

This would also help me understand not via the various policies and abbreviated 'see this link' that you editors keep hiding behind - but to get the message from the editors mouth and opinion.

So - if possible - can I get an answer on : why was it spam ? and what do you yourself know about captcha ?

regards - pete --88.102.4.80 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I considered this article to be unwanted, because you seem to be the author of this website (captcha.biz), and considering the many banners on it, I think you are making money of it. Although making money of websites isn't wrong in itself, if the author of the website posts the link on wikipedia, it appears to me he/she tries to make some easy money. If your website is notable enough to be added to the External Links section of a Wikipedia article, probably someone else would have added it already. As far as concerning the Captcha for beginners article, this article seems to be somewhat of an advert for your site, as you'd need to visit it to make anything useful of the information you give in the article. It also wasn't of real Wikipedia-worthy quality, and it wasn't formatted as a proper article. If you'd want to give useful information on the use of CAPTCHAs, you could consider writing it as a link Wikibook. Also, if you'd like your website to be in the External Links section of an article, you could try to improve it, so it would be of higher quality. I might or might not know as much about them as you do, but that shouldn't really matter, as I generally do know which sites are useful to be linked to on Wikipedia.
 * To answer you questions:
 * Why was it spam?
 * What do I know about CAPTCHAs?
 * I hope to have informed you enough. If wish you all luck and success in your career as Wikipedia contributer and as webmaster --Whollabilla 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: You have said in your edit summaries and on your user pages "someone" keeps deleting your link, but it were several users who apparently the same feelings about this link. Also, there are no "Wikipedia Deleter Gods" as you seem to think. All users could reach the same level as others, if they would prove themselves worthy. This is what other people have done, so you and me could achieve the same.



Whollabilla,

Of course I am the author of captcha.biz. and have stated this all over wikipedia - or at least there where your mates were suggesting that I was impartial.

How can one be impartial ( read pretend it didn't exist) about his own created resource on Captcha ? And confusing passion with impartiality is beside the point.

There are no banners there but a few google ads, which I place on all my websites and in the case of captcha.biz just about cover for the domain name costs. [ for you reference I have about 70 websites which deal from real estate to teaching people how to use Photoshop and have never felt the need to include these in wikipedia - and only state this as you assumed that captcha.biz is intended to make money - do me a favour and offer more credibility if you can as to from where people make their bread and butter please - captcha.biz is something I am passionate about as it soved my own form spam problem ]

The captcha website is not a money making project. A lot of passion was put into it to help others stop spam. Attention please - a lot of researched, and functional passion with an attained result. Being captcha for everyone.

Someone else should have added it to wikipedia?

If you have something useful to offer to others for free you won't wait till others add it but will do so yourself.

And also - you don't seriously think that of the 200 webmasters that read the usefull captcha information on captca.biz each day will take the bother to add the website to wikipedia do you ? They have other problems such as spam to deal with

If it was that easy I could have 30 people adding it there each day upon my request - but I chose to go the sincere way.

But wikipedia does not work that way - as you know and only the selected few have the final decision.

Improve the website ? Anyone who is not a programmer can understand and add captcha to their website in 15 minutes by going through the main 6 tutorials on captcha.biz. What more can I improve ? Have you really seen the website ?

Ahhh .. but you have never been in the position of having to stop spam mail and have to add captcha to your website by yourself have you ?

Never mind what you may know about Captcha, I myself know very little but consider myself an authority in being able to implement captcha on websites - which I have done in person - AND ... important - be able to pass this valuable information to others for free - which the wikipedia section on captcha does not do.

How many of the CPATCHA editors who know all the history and theory do you think have actually got their hands dirty with adding captcha to their site ?

Several users deleted my external link ?

Haw haw haw - you aren't serious are you ? Users ?

Can you add up to 5 ? [ no offence meant but seems pertinent ]

If yes then it was either the selected 3 from wikipedia - those with no knowledge about captcha - nor having actually read the website with need to add captcha to their website - or other 2 'users' - ie, not wiki admins - who you have allowed to keep their external link there.

The first link there is a page full of google ads - and nothing about how to implement captcha. Complete captcha crap.

But you guys like the profesional sounding domain don't you. (rhetoric)

I have also 'talked' to another of your deletor God wiki admins, and now this issue is no longer about captcha.biz, it is about you editors not having a clue on what you are doing based upon clauses, burocracy and the world of Jimbo Walls.

This means that either someone who has knowledge about subject 'a' can delete it - and offer an opinion on why - because the subject was not well explained [ that is what encyclopedias are about - EXPLAINING ] - or someone else deletes it because they are impartial, have no time, follow rules which are an algorithm etc.

Even google has decided that captcha.biz should rank high.

Prove myself worthy to be a wikipedia editor ? More than explaining an important technology and how to implement it - much better than the wikipedia Captcha page - what else can I do - bend over backwards ?

And - please note - captcha IS important to combat spam. I am not promoting icecream here but EXPLAINING CAPTCHA. Wikipedia uses captcha too.

The wikipedia CAPTCHA page does not allow for me to expand on how to implement captcha as it is encyclopedic - as in 1901 times explanation of a subject. My slant on captcha is to help people use it - explain on how to add it to their websites - which is harder than you will ever know until you one day have to do it yourself.

Ok - so forget all of the above and just answer me please with a yes or no to the following 2 questions:

Question 1 :

Not being able to explain on the CAPTCAH wikipedia page how to use captcha because the page will not allow this, if I have a website that explains how to add captcha for the non programmer - the webmaster dummie- step by step, should someone who knows at least something about captcha and it's implementation be the one to decide if an external link to captcha.biz is worthy of wikipedia or not ?

No........:

Yes......:

Question 2 :

Whatever your answer to question 1 is, can I try and add a section to the main CAPTCHA page in wikipedia about how to implement captcha to a website ? [ obviously without any links to captcha.biz etc. ]

No........:

Yes......:

Finally - I would like to leave you and your editing mates with the following:

" Come on now, Who do you, who do you, who do you, who do you think you are ?

Ha, ha, ha, .... bless your soul,

You really think you're in controll.

.. well, ... I think you're Crazy, I think you're Crazy - etc.

[Gnarls Barkley - Crazy]

Yeah - I know, food for thought is not on the menu but believe it should be.

Because if it isn't - then we have a humourless dictatorship and we all know how all these tend to end.

And you and the other impartial chosen few - are doing your worst - in discouraging sincere and very pertinent content to being added to the "free encyclopedia that everyone can..." ... argh - never mind.

Pete --Captchap 02:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling errors
The spelling you changed werent errors at all, this is an American site and therefore uses American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammertime123 (talk • contribs) February 19, 2007
 * That's not true, and sign your posts. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be better if a article was only in American English or in British English, not a bit of both, so when I checked for spelling errors, I changed that, too. (It's not that I prefer British over American on Wikipedia, I just like to see tidy articles, and I think being written in one style benefits to the tidiness) Whollabilla 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Regional variations in English
The changes you made to Pacman (Arch Linux) were only rewording the text in American English. Since the subject of the article is not inherantly American, changing the regional variation of English is not appropriate. If it was an article about an American city or president, for example, it would be okay to do that, but when you do it to articles that do not specifically apply only to America, it only serves to Americanize the encyclopedia, which is prohibited. Please avoid doing this in the future. I have reverted the edit you made to this article. Jerry 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just thought it was incorrect and needed to be changed. I think you are right, though. Thanks --Whollabilla 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS., I actually like "English-English" more than American English, so shame on me --Whollabilla 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS.2, You can see this just above your post --Whollabilla 17:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Splashy-logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Splashy-logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)