User:Versageek/Talk/Archive/2

This is an archive - please don't edit here.. new messages should be posted on My Talk Page

Response to message sent about external link contributions

Hello Versageek

Thank you for your input on the contributions we have made to external links lists on a couple of articles. We have read the relevant guidelines and we do not feel we are in violation of any of them. The link we have added was deleted multiple times by individuals who apparently did not investigate it's relevance sufficiently and made summary judgements regarding it's intent.

The link does not perform any advertising or promotional function and is not directed towards personal gain or promotion. It is a link to a page that the advocacy group Democracy by the People has put great painstaking effort into creating as a free and open resource for those researching the topics directly related to the Wikipedia articles to which we added the link. Our page provides links to over 600 websites and articles related to the topic, and is the most extensive such list in existence on the web.

We think you can agree that this is a valuable resource for Wikipedia readers to advance their pursuit of knowledge and learning regarding the topic and it's inclusion in the relevant articles is in line with the goals of Wikipedia. Democracy by the People has no advertizing on it's website, and has nothing to gain but the free and open dissemination of information about direct and participatory democracy to interested parties. That is the sole motive for our existence, and for us adding the link, and represents no conflict of interest.

The external links lists in both articles contain links to similar sites of similar organizations that provide the same type of free information and lists of relevant links, so We fear that we have been targeted by overzealous individuals, perhaps due to an error we made in an earlier contribution which perhaps has made us a target. We quickly did our best to remedy that error, and we think that if this current contribution were evaluated on its own merits without prejudice, it would not be judged as suspect. We welcome any further input on your part, especially if under further investigation of the situation you find that you are in agreement with our assessment and could serve as an advocate on our part in relation to your Wikepedia peers.

Thank you and best regards --Democracybythepeople (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Shobana Chandrakumar's page changed

No derogatory stuff anymore; only the truth as published in the media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shishirsingh1 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

William Jefferys entry

Thank you for your comment. The documentation that supports what I said is available below: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/racism_in_avoid_l_forum.pdf

Best,

- Julio Siqueira (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ADHD

I should be delighted to have your help. Self-appointed guardians of a certain page have repeatedly deleted edits I have made, on what I believe to be spurious grounds. I should liek to refer this to a neutral arbitrator. I should have said I was Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted you again.. please don't continue making the same changes to the article. It will only lead to you being blocked for edit-warring. I have placed a {{disputed}} tag at the top of the page - so everyone can see that someone disagrees. The next step is to use the discussion page to determine how to reflect the dispute in the text without resorting to weasel words. --Versa geek 23:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

what is a "test edit"? all i did was edit a page, because it said "edit" so i wanted to EDIT it! wtf is wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad5161 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to have your attention to Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder again. I've been trying to bring the article to a neutral position without unbalancing it, and it is starting to become more difficult, as POV editors from two extremes are pushing hard in opposite directions. The user you warned before, User:Clockback, is heavily contentious in Talk, claiming that the truth is being excluded from the article; he was originally restrained after his 3RR warning, but has now returned to making edits that he knows will be reverted as inappropriate, and he just acknowledged that he was doing this as a "test." diff. User:Scuro knows policy better, but is a fast-reverting editor with a POV, which he has expressed many times: any criticism of "ADHD" is fringe. I was only able to keep a mention of the controversy in the article, facing his reverts, because I found reliable source for it, and the word "controversy" wasn't allowed by him, but he has, so far, had to settle for "diverse views," since that was in the source. He is almost an SPA, contentious from the beginning, see Special:Contributions/Scuro. Giving that I'm seeing clear POV edits from both sides now, it's becoming difficult to maintain the article without 3RR violations on my part. (But there are some other editors assisting, which helps.) The strong POV editors have resisted attempts to unify them in seeking an article which is fair to all notable points of view. I developed a plan, which was to put the brief mention of "diverse views" in the intro, leaving the article more or less alone, i.e., not putting weasel words in every claim, or inserting every critical comment available, but then focusing on the article Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies where the notability problem is far less significant, and, when that article was solid and reliably sourced, summary style could be used to bring what was appropriate back to the main article. In any case, advice as well as support with the article, perhaps protecting it, would be useful. (Or semi-protecting it, an IP editor just took out the reference to the subarticle on controversies with no edit summary, it's beyond me why there is such fervor among the anti-fringe crowd. I can understand Clockback's crusade.) I have warned Clockback and I intend to warn Scuro and another editor, the latter for incivility in an edit summary.diff. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really - and writing things like "Peter Hitchens's comment is dense" isn't contentious?? I got "This is a complex discussion, it is necessary to be able to read in order to follow it" and "Ever hear of Messies Anonymous?" in ADHD talk from Abd. I consider his last comment simply trolling for a ban on Clockback and my last edit to the ADHD controversy article has been immediately reversed by Abd. Like Scuro I find this edit warring and long lectures on policy unnecessary. Miamomimi (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of links

Recently you deleted all my contributions? I put the links [www.GetitDoneRight.ca] and [www.ualocal67.com] to United Association. Local 67 pays dues and is a part of the United Association I think the link is justified. As well the other link is the Canadian division of the United Association. Please explain why theese links can not be added. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbfooled (talk • contribs) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, links on articles should provide encyclopedic information about the subject. If you feel your sites should be linked on those pages, please inquire on the article talk page. If others agree with you, they may be re-added. --Versa geek 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== additions to Category:Recyclable materials ==

You are right. I was kind of thinking maybe to make a Recyclable Products category, but that could get a little extreme. I had planned on whittling it down a bit. Thank you for the feedback. I think i'll go work on it now.Quickmythril (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of authority in Trita Parsi's page.

I find the process that you (Versageek) is following very unfair. I beg you to at least discuss what I have argued there and give it al list an appearance of a more democratic process! The section under political controversy is cut and censored so much that it is a meaningless paragraph now. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

Unfortunately, I am dealing with a complaint by the subject which now involves lawyers. It is not my objective to suppress legitimate criticism, however I must insist that content critical of Parsi and the organization which he heads be verifiable and sourced (preferably from main-stream media/news, not political opinion sites), and the sources meet the criteria set in our Reliable Sources guidelines. --Versa geek 04:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please define a fair process in which the other side of Trita Parsi can be discussed too. If A famous Washington Lawer (Roy Coffee) in a letter published in media claimes that he worked with Trita Parsi and Bob Ney to create NIAC (disbuting what the subject claimes) is that legitimate? Have you typed Parsi's name in google to see what comes up? and then Wiki intendes to offer a clean white washed one sided image of Trita Parsi? Please point to a fair and balanced way. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

Ingushetiya.ru, former Www.ingushetiya.ru

Hi! Please be more careful when speedeleting articles. Simple google search gives results like these (http://rferl.org/reports/FullReport.aspx?report=567&id=2007/02/567-10-06, http://www.jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2373790) that prove the notability of this portal. One doesn't even have to know Russian to determine this. Respectfully, Alæxis_¿question? 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz.com on the SquelchBot blacklist

Who recommended that MyWikiBiz.com be put on the SquelchBot blacklist? I am going to guess that it's someone with a conflict of interest regarding the owner of the site, and that it wasn't vetted through any public discussion. I'll look for your answer here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.72.53 (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That domain was added to the blacklist by User:Betacommand. --Versa geek 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And I fully endorse that decision. Mywikibiz is a site very prone to spam, and therefore new and unregistered users are reverted when adding this link. Established editors can add the link when deemed necessery. The statement on homepage says enough in this regard: "You earn money here. Author a really popular page, embed your own Google AdSense ads on it, and you keep 100% of the revenues generated from that page's advertising.". Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Rocketboom. Wikipedia already has an article about it at Rocketboom. You mention Ellie Rountree in the article, but you have it going to a red link page that doesn't even exist. The guy who runs MyWikiBiz made a page about Ellie (http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Ellie_Rountree) on MyWikiBiz, and we think it's pretty awesome. What damage is being done to Wikipedia by having a link to something the community has already determined is important and notable enough, but hasn't bothered to make a page about? I just don't understand -- isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia that helps readers find information they're looking for, or is it just a game to punish other websites? - Makeacontribution (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Information should be included (if it is notable enough), if you want to find information, dmoz is to your left, [and google is to your right. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, we are not a linkfarm or an advertising service. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your hopes that this "explains" are quaint, but unfulfilled. I am an established editor since March 2006, and my attempt to add a useful link about Ms. Rountree was similarly rebuffed by this bot. I am thankful that you've included links to DMOZ and to Google, both are extremely useful resources, as is mywikibiz for some of the semi-notable people and institutions that have not yet made their way to a full Wikipedia article. I happen to think Wikipedia's purpose is to share human knowledge with readers seeking it. You seem to have a different agenda. So, again, why are we blocking mywikibiz, yet tolerating over 11,000 links to Wikia -- a site that as recently as four days ago was promoting and protecting adult fantasies of physically abusing pre-pubescent children? I don't recall mywikibiz hosting pictures children being beaten red to the point of tears. Wikia also personally benefits three noted Wikipedians, so there is a clear conflict of interest. The number of links to Wikia has nearly tripled in the past 18 months. How do you define spam-linking, if not by that? Please add Wikia to the Squelchbot, and I think all will be fair and balanced. Or, remove mywikibiz (a huge threat, with its 12 previous external links. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks for cleaning up after SquelchBot at Jolie Justus. It's very annoying to be an IP, some days... (no logging in from work). 205.167.180.130 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Help Removing the Pictures Of Holy Prophet Muhammad

Hello Dear,

Being Muslims, Islam prohibits pictures of any living being but specially pictures of Holy Prophet will cause panic among the Muslims throuhout the world.

Pleaes remove all the pictures of Holy Prophet Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjankhan (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oleo

Hello I tried to ad a link to the page on Oleo of Phineas Newborn Jr. Playing the song on youtube. Please relink and undo the bot's work. Thanks--74.138.83.10 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The da Vinci Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work. Awarded to Versa geek for the resurrection and enhancement of such a good bot, XLinkBot. --Hu12 (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If the bot gets a new name, Please feel free to change that above...--Hu12 (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have to give Beetstra the credit for enhancements. I support the infrastructure & keep the bots running. Now, if we can just emerge from the testing period, I'll be happy! --Versa geek 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my contributions to Wikipedia

Question, why are you targetting me by deleting my contributions to Wikipedia? I thought anyone could contribute, thanks for any reply. Wfgh66 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see: this discussion & others linked from there. --Versa geek 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, have I been included on a Spam List, why - what have I done wrong? I do not understand - can you please explain? The links to my website that are now being deleted were mostly placed in the Wikipedia articles by other people - contributors and other Administrators like LoreMaster and Paul Barlow. And links to pseudo-historical websites remain intact. My website is not pseudo-historical or of a romantic history nature. It is rigidly critical and concentrates on producing unique primary source material, why have I been placed into the spam category? Can you please explain. This would be highly appreciated. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE CAN YOU GIVE ME A REPLY, This is very important. Thank you very much, respectfully, Wfgh66 (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here, see, 77.49.252.57 is removing links to my website that were placed by others. You can verify this for yourself. respectfully,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gérard_de_Sède&action=history Wfgh66 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Joe Pulizzi

Hi! Noticed your recent revision and I'm glad to have someone besides the creator and I step in there as s/he's asking some questions that I can't quite answer, especially re: the bot edits. Can you come help me answer the questions so we can get the article going wherever it needs to go? I have no vested interest in it, other than fixing it and keeping the creator from going insane from the bot reverts. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your psycho-bot is removing inter-Wikipedia Links

Your psycho-bot is removing inter-Wikipedia Links like:
The planet Earth's temperature extreme records are:
See the reversions at Planetary human habitability
198.163.53.10 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the message the bot left on your talk page, it tells you why your edits were reverted.. they contained a link to blogspot.com. I have reverted the article to your version, minus the blogspot.com link. --Versa geek 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Business Broker page

As a business buyer, working with a business broker, I found this page of fantastic help. www.alpinebusinessbrokers/funding-a-small-business.html. I tried to add a link for others but it keeps getting removed. I notice other links from other brokers that are also good information, such as the link to www.brcslc.com on the role of the escrow attorney. The link above was very easy for me to understand and in simple straight forward language laid out in a very easy to understand format, with additonal links and helps. Please consider adding this link to help other buyers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.243.172 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Career Pathways

thank you for the information on the deletion of the career pathways page - we are going to work on the definition today and use the writing better article guidelines to help. -Janan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janan douglasgould (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

getVEQ.com

I believe you deleted my page "getVEQ.com", citing that my post did not comply with the guidelines. I read the guidelines and I also modeled my page after other similar pages which are currently active, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_Pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citysearch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelp%2C_Inc.

Can you provide details on why my page was any different than these? I really do want to learn and comply.

Thank you. --Cmg07068 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read our web content and corporate notability guidelines. In looking at the three pages you mention, Citysearch is probably the weakest in terms of establishing notability, Insider Pages had coverage in the New York Times, and Yelp has much press coverage, as well as having received a "Webby" award. Your page was deleted the first time because it read like an advertisement, and the second time because it failed to establish notability as defined in the guidelines I mentioned above. --Versa geek 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TEL I.T. NETWORK

TEL I.T. NETWORK:

An Administrator is the best judge to decide if an article is worth for deletion. So I shall have no objection if an administrator finds an article worth deletion.

Thanking you - Soumendra Nath Thakur (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning about copyrights infringement about Caracal pistol page

Hello.

"Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Caracal Pistol. "

I did not infringe any copyright since I am the author of the text I used and that is used in non commercial Caracal informative site I linked to exactly the same way I linked to a non commercial informative thread about the MP 18.1, the one I own being one of the 7 pieces known registered pieces in the world and the only one to be in full working original conditions. My professional activity as a fireams and ballistic expert allowed me to searh in depth the genesis of this new type of weapons during WW1 and after more than 15 years of search I could even find the descendant of the actors who played such an important role in history and technology. I am actually the only person in the world to be able to post pictures and videos of many mythical weapons like I did on some forums (I would like to upload some pictures on Wikipedia but I am not at ease with the upload process yet) The reason behind being able to do so I the fact that I spent years searching both for professional reasons and personal interest, my activity allowing me to own, use and study the material I post about.

I would like now to share this knowledge I acquired since I am changing course in my professional orientation and most of those in quest of informations in this field and more widely in History will greatly appreciate to have finally reliable informative datas and not hearsay and endless cut and paste from non verified sources.

Sincerely Edmond HUET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickload (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Query about deletion of You Tube link

XLinkBot removed an external link to You Tube in the article titled Glider. I didn't add the link and personally I would have put it Gliding, but I would like to understand what judgement the bot applied. Articles can be illustrated with photos, but the only way to illustrate the sport of gliding with video would be by providing a link to some of the videos on You Tube. Quoting from the guidelines on external links "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sitesas long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent)". I have no idea whether a link to gliding videos would rank as one of the infrequent exceptions, but I have gone through each of the criteria and cannot see which one has been contravened in merely illustrating the subject. JMcC (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Realistically, no bot can evaluate the content of a youtube.com video. XLinkBot reverts new and anonymous users who add links to youtube.com, as well as a few other popular domains. More often than not, links to these domains added by new and anonymous users fail to meet the guidelines (because these users don't know them), and many times they link to content which is copyvio material (clips of TV shows, etc..). We do leave the user an informative message about why they were reverted & ask them to review the guidelines. If they believe the link complies, they are free to revert the bot. It will only revert 3 times a day on a specific article - and it won't revert if the last version was by it or an anti-vandal bot. I'm not sure if this answers your question. We are still evaluating XLinkBot's operational parameters to find what works best for stemming the tide of inappropriate links without biting the users. --Versa geek 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot

Did a few things for XLinkBot. Made {{/request|0#section_name}} for logging (modified the instructions^[1]] and created archives w/instruct^[2]. Ive posted as such in the discussion section^[3]. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot & WP:BITE

I'm interested that you enforce the style guideline wp:el with a bot. Have the pros and cons of removing blogspot.com addresses on sight been weighed up in any discussion? It seems to me to go against wp:agf to assume that such a link is not to an authority, for instance, or to a useful unproblematic site for which no better substitute exists . In the case which made me notice the bot, btw, I had corrected a typo, making a link by another editor "live". 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

youtube.com & XLinkBot

you realize that some users have quite properly been painstakingly going through links to youtube to determine which violate copyright and which do not? Why should you ride roughshod over work which adheres to policy and respects users? As with the blogspot issue i asked about several days ago without response, you are removing stuff on sight based on the newness of the user, not with regard to policy. I support a courteous bot like cluebot who reverts possible vandalism as necessary and, in my experience, judicious - but this bot that target new users based merely on URLs like youtube and blogspot surely is neither. Work like this should be done on a case by case basis. This is demoralizing. [4] [5]. I am all too aware of the chilling effect and guilt by association caused by edit histories full of ip reversions. You cannot create a hierarchy of users. Policy does not support it, and I would be surprised if you could convince me that there is a reason why a bot should be doing this. Phrases like "more often than not" do not override concerns which go to the very heart of the project. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I share some of your concerns about having these popular domains on XLinkBot's revert list. As I said in an earlier reply to someone else, we are still ironing out the operating parameters for the bot, It may end up that these domains are removed from the revert list, that the reverting for these domains becomes more limited, or that we introduce new features to the bot to address these sort of additions in some other, more user-friendly manner. --Versa geek 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but your reply doesn't evidence that you've grappled with the facts laid out (I hope–feel free to query) above: that this bot does not and by definition cannot operate in line with policy, and is striking at core philosophies. I would expect you to at least have counter-arguments prior to running the bot.

One great thing your bot could do (I presume, I'm not a technical person) is flag edits like these and log them to a page where interested editors could inspect them? Would there be sufficient interest?

Is the bot patrolling just recent changes, or the whole database? (I'm concerned that previous work weeding out good and bad may be undone).

As I said above, I'm still open to the argument that there is a need so pressing and error margin so narrow for automation that it overrides these concerns, as in the case of cluebot. I just doubt it can be made convincingly. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try and expand on this. The people who try to keep the addition of external links in line with policy are facing an almost impossible task, there are about 40 links added to wikipedia (mainspace) every minute. The majority of those links are fine, but there are many links which do not comply with one or more of our policies and guidelines (Wikipedia:External links is a summary, which mainly 'discourages', though some are plainly not allowed according policy; e.g. Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT: links to copyrighted material should not be there, period). Users who have been here a bit longer generally know about these concerns and will check that before adding a link, but 'new' editors generally are not aware of these policies and guidelines. If the links do not qualify for one of the spam blacklists, the choice of reverting and warning the user that there may be concerns with their links is an option (this practice has been active quite long on Wikipedia as User:Shadowbot and User:AntiSpamBot). It seems a bit bitey (though the first warning is a good faith warning), and for some of the edits it is, but as far as I have seen the majority of the reverts by the bot are correct (and also ClueBot and VoABot II do make mistakes). The bot only reverts once on an edit, obeys 3RR etc., so links that are OK, dispite the bots concern, can be re-added without further warning, and the bot quickly forgets it warned a user before (after a couple of hours). Only persistent adding links will get your edits being reported, and then still that can be reverted if they are deemed OK.

If it is indeed the case that some domains are too often mistakenly reverted, then they should be removed from the revertlist. Though I think that even for myspace, youtube and blogspot in more than 99.5% there is some form of concern which should be investigated (e.g. blogs would only be OK if they are the official blog of the subject of the wikipage, and even for those who seem to have the name of the article, often there is no proof that it is actually an official blog, and most are just not correct).

One possibility that I have been thinking about is to make the first revert on a user not a revert, but a good faith remark to the users talkpage (something along the line 'thank you for adding information to .., but the external link .. that you added or changed is on my revertlist, could you please check if the external link you added there does comply with .., .., .. and ... If the link does not comply with one or more of these, then please remove the link.'). If the user then adds the link to more pages, it may qualify as 'spamming', and can be reverted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot and voabot do indeed make mistakes, and are not so circumspect re reversions (on the night i met xlink bot i was being reverted by voabot attempting to remove a list...) but i "forgive" them because clearly vandalism needs to be removed urgently. the first warning is a good faith warning ... The bot only reverts once on an edit, obeys 3RR etc., so links that are OK, dispite the bots concern, can be re-added without further warning I think reflecting on these two facts allays my concerns, so I withdraw them. Thank you for your time. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add, the 3RR and one-revert settings can be overridden using an on-wiki override list (one of the subpages under User:XLinkBot). If an administrator decides that a certain link/domain is particularly bad, then that can be used (but AFAIK the lists are empty). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we do not understand your reasons for removing our post.

Aloha Versageek

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much) for your input on contributions we have made to a couple of articles. Prior to making said posts, we tried to be respectful and read what we believed to be relevant guidelines. Though the references you sent were much more informative than we found. We have since read the relevant guidelines you sent links for and we do not feel we are in violation of any of them.

Never-the-less, our post was removed. Frankly, we cannot devote the time to help with this project. If our posts are going to be so extremely scrutinized as to remove useful information too. If the NETFIRMS link is acceptable there, then we were in good company, adding useful information to the Wiki.

But, it seems maybe that so much concern is placed on self-promotion, that the value of the information is not relevant. So not only was our link removed, the information was as well.

In any event, we publish comments on many topics with Businessweek, ZDnet and more. Considering their concern for self-promotion, they have always regarded our posts as useful. If posting here is not appreciated in similar form. Then we must invest our time elsewhere.

Please consider replacing our post, and encouraging us to continue to add to this project. Or advise us to move on where we will feel the "love".

Have a wonderful week, and a successful year.

Aloha,

Franz Rodgers, CEO BYTEmeCITY Chairman@SuperKids.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.140.37 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

issue with a editor on a wiki page

on the ogame wiki page we are having an issue with an individual constantly trying to advertize his website. on the page we have a description of the game as expected and a section with reviews faq's etc. also in that section is approved tools for the game. these tools while not directly supported by gameforge are endorsed by the english section of ogame. many requests have been made of this individual to discontinue but this has yet to happen. it seems you have also had a runin with him. 85.5.117.109 (talk) as you can see this is an IP issue. the ip does not appear dynamic as it is quite steady on the edits. we have attempted contact via the articles discussion page. i know on some pages this has been done and im not sure if it can be done here... but is it possible to make the ogame page editable by only registered users? any assistance in this matter would be appreciated. thanks. Anubis1055 (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Group B videos

Hi, XlinkBOT deleted very illustrative videos from Group_B#External_links. It's my impression that those video clips have been in the public domain for well over a decade. They date from the mid-1980s. Please fix your BOT so it doesn't do that. --63.98.135.196 (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Versageek I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's exactly the discussion I asked to be directed to, ~~how disappointing that Versageek kept it from me~~. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't keeping it from you. I didn't think to point you to that discussion, (which closed a few hours before you posted your first message here), because it wasn't so much about the content of the revert list as it was about where the revert list was located and how aggressively the bot would revert. --Versa geek 05:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stricken in belated AGF, but that's a weird characterization of that discussion. I think you remember technical ramifications more than policy ones. :P 86.44.6.14 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

millipede

I was trying to post a video link on "Millipede"

And it was deleted.

I don't think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.10.78 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but the television clip in the youtube video you linked to is a copyright violation, we can't link to URLs which violate other's copyrights. --Versa geek 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

yummy poem

I have eaten

the plums

that were in

the icebox

and which

you were probably

saving

for breakfast

Forgive me

they were delicious

so sweet

and so cold — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making me smile! --Versa geek 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I live to give! ;) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pontypool

Why revert the edit by Culturenut that added an aerial photo to the Pontypool article? This article has certainly suffered from trollage a lot lately, but this was a legitimate external link. Do you have an aerial photo suitable fro upload to wikicommons? I don't. In its absence, I'd regard this link as valid. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The gtj.org.uk site itself seems to be an excellent resource. I have no problem with the regular editors of any of the pages I reverted - reverting me, or adding the links themselves if they find them useful. Unfortunately, that site has been spammed recently by a small handful of users. --Versa geek 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:69.140.157.227

Your bot left a message on a talk page belonging to an IP being used by me. Please check there for my reply. 69.140.157.227 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Logica

Thanks for the extremely speedy speedy delete. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 06:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

letterwhiz.com on blacklist

Hi,

I would like to get letterwhiz.com off of the spam blacklist, I made some mistakes by posting links to letterwhiz on a few wiki entries, and have learnt my lesson. What must I do to get this website un-blacklisted.

Thanks, -- J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainnmann (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Espacenet redirect

The redirect was created after a page move by myself[6] was reverted[7]. I do not think it is a useless redirect (in fact this is often the way it is referred to by outside sources, see [8][9][10]). In fact after I was reverted I put forward a formal move request at WP:RM and [Talk:esp@cenet]] and it looks like this is more than a valuable redirect; it will be where the page is located.

So I am requesting undeletion and if possible could you tell me what user requested that it be deleted? Regards Mcmullen writes (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted to allow the requested move to be made "(speedy delete housekeeping - making room for esp@cenet per unaminous move request at WP:RM after five days)". --Versa geek 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kat Young

Dear Versageek,

I am not sure why you decided to delete Kat Young post. I read the guidelines over and over again and think that there's a valid reason to have her on wikipedia. There are over 100 entries of porn stars on wikipedia so why this be any difference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_porn_stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_porn_stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_porn_stars_by_decade

I'm a big fan of Kat Young and would love to see her on wikipedia. Please advise on how to bring back the post and if any changes are necessary in order to make this happened.

Much thanks, David

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Holla.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Holla.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mynheer

Hey there, I saw that you deleted article Mynheer under the rationale of Wikipedia:CSD#G6, and I'm just calling to inquire exactly what you did, or are planning to do, with it. Quoting rationale for the creating of the page posted on my userpage:"Milord already has a page, so this is a textbook case for keeping Mynheer, as to retain NPOV"(and appropriate world view) Since G6 is the non-controversial utility rationale, I'd just appreciate your motive. Thanks.Merechriolus (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored it. It may still end up being deleted as a non-English dictionary definition, however, it should go through AfD. I have transwiki'd it to English Wiktionary (I'm an admin there, so I was able to import it). --Versa geek 04:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. It might be deleted, it might not, but I'm just glad it can have a home somewhere.Merechriolus (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for reverting the vanadalism on my talk page, and taking appropriate action against the vandalizer. I appreciate it very much. Danny Sepley (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Admiration for XLinkBot

Just wanted to give you a thumbs-up for your excellent bot--its ability to quickly and fastidiously remove linkspam is impressive. ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

False positive?

Hi, Versageek. It looks like on this edit by XLinkBot, it was a false edit, and I reverted it. ClueBot has a similar thing to list false positives, except this is another bot. Thanks! SchfiftyThree 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Versa geek 03:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

South Maury Island

Thank you for alerting me. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

Why cannot I edit talk pages? When I save it it shows me something which says something about blacklists...Dimboukas (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Which page are you having a problem with? There is probably a note on the page that contains a URL that has since been added to the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. If you remove the "http://" part from in front of the URL - you should be able to save the page (and your message). --Versa geek 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the message I am trying to save:

“

Please support me when I claim that the article must also have in its infobox the map of its extent under Basil II. I tried to add the second map many times but it was always changed and I was also blocked. I have many arguments to expose about this subject

”

Dimboukas (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What page are you trying to save it on? (please post a link to the page) I see you've left similar messages on some pages - but obviously you haven't been able to edit the one with the spam already on it.. (noone can edit it - it isn't just you.. ) --Versa geek 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to make an edit at User talk:MishaPan. I cannot.Dimboukas (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there was a link to hubpages.com on the page, and that domain was recently blacklisted. I unlinked it, so you should be able to leave your message now. --Versa geek 14:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Dimboukas (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

Any thoughts on these two articles. Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery. merge? redirect?--Hu12 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Carl Stanley McGee was unwarranted

Your deletion of this page makes no sense, as the article is quite notable, has been written about in several Boston and Florida news stories, and it concerns a public official in a matter of public concern. Charles Stanley McGee is a high ranking politician in the Deval Patrick gubernatorial administration (Massachusetts) and has recently been charged with a very serious offense. He is free on several hundred thousand dollars bail money. His case is commented on by Boston radio personalities and is a current events story, NOT a personal attack, as was claimed in the "speedy deletion" message I received just now.

Nothing in the page I wrote could be rightly considered a personal attack. I am an attorney and I am well aware of the legal limitations of my first amendment rights. I know they do not give me carte blanche to expose private individuals to public attention, nor do they allow me to libel anyone. In my article, I have done neither. I have only reported what is available through open source news documents on a public figure in a matter of public concern. Please reinstate my page at once or at least provide a more complete explanation as to what is wrong with the page, as submitted.

Thank you, Levelor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelor (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that deletion as an attack page was a misnomer, however - had I found the page via other means, I would have deleted it anyway. The article gave undue weight to the subject's arrest (over half of an article which is suppose to be a biography about a person's entire life). Based on this Arbitration decision, articles about living persons can not be restored or recreated by any editor until they meet biographical article standards. I am willing to email the original text to you so that you can resolve the undue weight issue without having to rewrite the entire article. I suggest leaving out the social commentary and speculation surrounding the arrest & proceedings. --Versa geek 05:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Versageek - Thank you for replying to me; I received no response from Dethme0w. Yes, I would very much like to have the original text emailed to me so that I may revise it in accordance with wikipedia rules, thank you again.

Since you say the story deals too much with the arrest of Carl Stanley McGee, please compare my accounting of the matter to the page of Charles McGee, a man who's entire stub relates only to his arrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_McGee Charles McGee isn't even a politician, but a minor Republican party activist who was sent to prison for seven months. By contrast, Carl Stanley McGee is a high level political appointee in the employ of the Governor of Massachusetts. He also is facing much more serious charges and will likely serve several years if convicted. Therefore, his story is at least as newsworthy as that of Charles McGee and deserves to be published on Wikipedia. I will avoid further speculation and follow the story as it develops.

I would have gladly revised the piece earlier had a reasonable request been made instead of the the unexpected drive-by deletion the minute the story was posted. I honestly don't see how anyone even had a chance to read it and make a reasoned judgment, which makes me think it was a viewpoint based reaction. I will of course revise the piece to comply with all Wikipedia rules, however in doing so I must limit the details of Charles Stanley McGee's life to what I can verify through reliable sources. Since so much of what is in the news about Charles Stanley McGee relates to the arrest, that is what I am limited to writing about. I did my best to include biographical information, but as you know I am limited to what I can properly cite. Anything more would be unacceptable conjecture on my part. If what results is a page that focuses too much on the arrest, it should not, ipso facto, take away from the newsworthy value and remove all basis for publication.

Thank you again for your timely reply and I look forward to updating the original article as soon as you can send me a copy.

Levelor (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn Article For Deletion

I'm withdrawing an article I nominated for deletion as it now appears to have sufficient notability. Is it possible for me to do a non-admin close on it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahfaz-ur-Rahman? -WarthogDemon 04:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Adjustable gastric band talk page discussion

It does look like there is ongoing competitive link ad/removal, but I did add some comments here at Talk:Adjustable_gastric_band#Removed_forum_link, which are a continuation of my earlier post. Would you add anything to the discussion? Flowanda | Talk 02:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to ask you information about this page

When i search my blog music-selector on google, this page appears in the first page of google results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/music-selector.blogspot.com

Please i understand that my blog has inserted in the blacklist, cause one of my "ex" co-worker editor has abuse with the links inclusion, i apologize for this and i imagine that my blog will not be deleted from blacklist, but it's possibile to remove this page at least. It's not a good image for our music project.

Many thanks in advance Regards Fabio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.68.104 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please anyone could reply to me??

Thanks Fabio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.71.45 (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Register.com deletion

K, as long as it doesn't end up looking like an advert, that's fine. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Youtube external link undone by XLinkBot

Here is the revert. I think the link I added is quite relevant (videos documenting a practically-dead, little known sign language) and it's not a copyright violation. Maybe I should link to a search page rather than a user page (though this seemed to omit some of the videos), but XLinkBot's cited reason was simply "Youtube.com", which makes me think that it intends to revert any youtube links. What do you think? --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Youtube external link undone by XLinkBot 2

Here's another example of the same situation. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While I can't tell the copyright status of those videos, it's unlikely that someone would go to all that trouble to put such esoteric info online in video format if they didn't have the right to do so. (IMHO).. If, having reviewed the guidelines - you feel a link is still appropriate, you may revert the bot. It won't revert you twice in a row. In this case, I have reverted the bot in both instances. --Versa geek 02:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know the bot didn't revert. I don't think there can be a problem with copyright, because the first videos were produced in 1930 by the United States Department of Agriculture for information rather than commercial purposes, and the other one was simply uploaded on Youtube by its creator. In any case, it's kind of strange that the bot automatically reverts all external links to Youtube, when the WP:External Links guideline doesn't prohibit them explicitly. I can see the reason (I suppose many more people upload links to copyrighted MTV clips and stuff like that), but it's still somewhat perplexing for a user to encounter this and not understand what was wrong with his edit. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Linthicum Article link undone

You removed a link to a non-comercial web page operated by North Linthicum, Maryland a community which is a part of Linthicum Maryland which is the topic of the Linthicum Article therefore the link to the page http://mysite.verizon.net/cbladey/northl/northl.html should be restored. Note that I referred to this issue on the Linthicum Article web page talk. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.71.51 (talk • contribs)

I see you have reverted the bot, that is ok --Versa geek 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for not deleting Walt Bogdanich. I was worried that perhaps the notability guideline had been amended to say that only winners of the Noble Peace Prize are notable now, and then only if they're dead. Glad to see it's not (yet) the case. --JayHenry (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pankration Section and Link Deletion

You have just deleted an entire section I added on the Pankration page because I had a youtube link on it. 1. The section was very informative on the techniques of pankration give very thorough descriptions on each of them. The ENTIRE section should not be deleted because of a link in it. 2. The youtube link was to a video taken from History Channel Human Weapon show which is very informative to the subject of pankration because it gives a visual description of the techniques. I doubt there is any liscensing issues with this video. I feel like this video is a vital component to my wikipedia edit and if I had the video saved on my computer I wouldve uploaded it, I could only find it on youtube. Please get back to me as soon as you can on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrr1234 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The video contained in that YouTube link is likely a violation of the History Channel's copyright on the Human Weapon show.. If you need to get all of your changes back, without retyping them - you can revert the bot, then remove the youtube link (if you make another edit to the article without removing the link, the bot will revert you again). --Versa geek 05:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bug

Something wasn't URL-encoded properly: User_talk:XLinkBot#Simmons. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

eh

Eh .. your mysql is down, and I can't restart the bots. I am on holiday as well now, so .. err .. good luck, hope to see you back soon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, the box rebooted.. :( --Versa geek 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I had to repair a handfull of tables last night .. I think everything is now finally back to normal. Those crashes are awful, too bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your bot is removing legitimate YouTube links

Your bot is removing legitimate YouTube links, such as here. Now that you are aware of this, failure to correct this in the bot constitutes an act of vandalism because:

1. The removal of legitimate links damages the integrity of Wikipedia.

2. In the knowledge that this is happening, failure to correct it constitutes a deliberate attempt to damage the integrity of Wikipedia, regardless of whatever good you think your bot does elsewhere.

3. Therefore this violates Wikipedia: vandalism:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

I would be greatful if you could correct this. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this has been handled on WP:AN in my absence. As Beetstra explained, there are several ways for anon users to add links to sites on the revert list, particularly if they are familiar with editing & formatting guidelines. I had some reservations when high traffic sites like You-Tube and Blogspot were placed on the revert list, but after reviewing many of XLinkBot's edits I've seen that bot reversion of "drive-by additions" containing these links by anon & new users is a net plus for the project. --Versa geek 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

unwarranted reversion by XLINKBOT

I refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mousercise

And if anyone else reading this has the ability to do what I could not for the entry, please feel free.

HOWEVER, simple deletions could be considered vandalism, as my addition IS an attempt to add legitimate and meaningful data to the entry...

75.8.35.177 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply to the above post. --Versa geek 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Zoor is not illegal or spam

Sir or Madam, please see my website http://zoor.biz, this is the best yellow pages of Pakistan, at least allow me to add link in yellow pages article and commerce and industry articles regarding Pakistan and Karachi, it is 100% relevant believe me my brother or sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasnain.shahab (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's a quality directory service for the region, however Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. I suggest DMOZ for that purpose. --Versa geek 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that "Toofy" guy.

He just keeps recreating accounts, and vandalising the same pages over and over again. I've seen what he's done on my friend Antandrus's page. Wouldn't it be possible to block that IP from creating any more accounts? Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And he's back again under "Toof en chocolate." [11] Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the box that said 'block account creation' and I'm guessing others have done so when blocking his other accounts, however given that he keeps coming back, he's probably using proxies or a dynamic IP address. --Versa geek 19:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But is there anything that can be done, if that's what's happening? Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh heh heh heh Mee fink dat dat toofy guy iz bad newz and mee phinks dat he deserve to be punished eh heh heh heh heh AHHHHHH toofy twicked yoo yoo fot dat it was somwon else but it jus toofy. Eh heh heh heh heh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toofy hill (talk • contribs) 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, anyone can tell from your writing who you are. Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversions

I'm so sorry, I just started using Twinkle to edit pages. I hope i did not cause any inconvenience.Limaye (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Author page change revert

Hi Versageek--Earlier today I updated the content of my Wiki page about me as a commercially published scifi author (T. Jackson King). Also, at the bottom where external links were listed, I added a new link to my new author's web page--which is an updated version of the sfwa link already listed. There is new material at this link (a googlepages web page). Reading your post, it seems my sin was to add a Link that appears to be self-promotion. In truth, the Link add was >intended< as an update to what was already present on the T. Jackson King wiki page. I will be updating the data/info on the body text, but not adding the Link until I hear from you whether this is "OK" or not. Thanks for your volunteer work. 65.19.18.211 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's an official site of the author or his publisher, it is usually acceptable. Please read our external links guideline. You may revert the bot if you feel your link meets our guidelines. --Versa geek 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ourgle

Hi, i added the link www.ourgle.com to the article web search engine because ourgle is an example of the same. Also, this is a shared ip and thus i would be editing from my user account the next time :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.114.33 (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, everyone wants to have their favorite site listed as "an example". This often leads to situations which end up reflecting badly on those sites & offending new Wikipedia users such as yourself. To avoid this sort of negative interaction, we prefer to use "examples" that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. --Versa geek 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the help.

Thank you for ur message, hmm, i have a question, my page "patriotic union of mesopotamia" just got deleted for the lack of proof "as a political party", brother we have a letter from the IECoI (electoral commision of the republic of Iraq) to prove our existence, why did we get deleted? We have more info our page than any other iraqi party + our website is fully functional and everything is working fine unlike the other wiki pages of other iraqi parties whom are either closed now or have never existed.

Mufarij ibn Homam (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

proof as a political party.

Thank u for ur reply and im sorry if my messages arent organized, im currently trying to learn more about wikipedia.

Anyway, sir, the party is barely 5 days old. we have no press release yet, but we have arranged some interviews with several newspapers and internet magazines, i can prove that by showing you my mails and letters. Other than that we cant show u prove from any governmental website in Iraq, brother we barely have electricity in baghdad where the central government is, they update once every month. Internet works fine in the north where our party is based and besides from that, my collegue from the ICP' central comitte dr. Mohammed Saleh have had some talks with general secretary mithal alousi (he has his own wiki-page) about forming an coalition without our party for the next election. Thats the only future proof i can provide since that would probably be documented by the media in iraq and europe where most of our members live, but even that i doubt because we are one little party out of more than 200 parties in iraq, since the requirements for being an party only need 500 signatures (in a country of 27 million people). By the time i have that proof our wiki-page would probably be deleted completely.

Mufarij ibn Homam (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a little reminder

..that you said you'd reply on my user page about doing an article about my band on the wikipedia. Not that I'm impatient or anything. No, no ;-)--The Space Banana (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

replied on user's talk page --Versa geek 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You...

...for taking the time to review a request for speedy deletion I put up on Michael Layton, 2nd Baron Layton and for your decision. Apologies if I went down the wrong route - I'm still fairly new to WP so even though I've been going through the guidelines I'm still prone to the odd mistake. I appreciate your patience, civility and assistance!

Kind Regards, IgorsBrain (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My link got removed even though it was the offical Myspace page to the movie

The link to the Myspace page for Fanboys(2008) is not the offical movie myspace page and is ran by the people who are against the current version of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Account creation blocking and autoblock disabling

I recently unblocked User:Betacommand2, and I noticed in the block log that you carried out an account creation blocking and autoblock disabling for the block on Betacommand2. I was asking for advice about this here, but then I noticed that you also did the same thing on Betacommand's alternate account Quercus basaseachicensis. I was going to e-mail you about this, but then I noticed that you were now commenting directly on the issues, such as here and here. I don't know that much about the reasons for blocking "account creation" and "disabling autoblock", but I know there have been problems in the past with autoblocks being disabled. Do you think you could briefly confirm why you carried out those blockings of account creation and autoblock disablings? Also, do you think you could say more than just "change block type" in the block log summaries in future, as that is more a description of what you are doing, rather than why you are doing it. If this is all very simple to explain, I apologise in advance for bothering you with this, but I would like to sort out what was happening here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta's primary account had already been unblocked by someone else, but he was caught in an autoblock from one of the blocks on the other accounts. I changed the blocks on the other accounts to "autoblock disabled" so it wouldn't happen again, while someone else actually undid the autoblock (not sure who, I would have done it myself but they beat me to it.). I left ACB in place since it was there in the original block. --Versa geek 21:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Sorry for bothering you with a simple question like that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

About Anonymous126...

About the pust you made on my talk page, I simply created the account to prevent the redirect (from User:Anonymous126) from being deleted per the criteria for speedy deletion. I posted the password if someone would like to use the account name "Anonymous126." They are welcome to change it to their own password if wanted. --User talk:Anon126 - 03:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that again. Also, please change your signature so that is complies with WP:SIG. Thanks, --Versa geek 03:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

About Anonymous126 (again)

Do what again?
By the way, I apologize for the typographical error; it's supposed to say "post", not "pust"

Anyway, I think you aren't understanding the situation. I created the page User:Anonymous126 redirect to User:Anon126 because someone who visited my page might've thought I used the long form ("Anonymous126"). I created ther account so it wouldn't be deleted under the CSD Section 6, Item 2 (for user pages; nonexistent user). I posted the password (and such) since I want this username to still be free for others to use (and so they can change their preferences, password, etc.). Once I find that they have made some contributions, or otherwise used the account, I will place a notice at the top of my userpage that looks somewhat like this:

You may be looking for Anonymous126 (talk · contribs).

Hopefully, upon reading this, you will understand that you need not block this account (because that would (obviously) go against my intentions (somewhat ironically). I do know that you can "unblock" an account, being an administrator.

Anon126 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post an account password as you did with the Anonymous126 account password. I'm willing to unblock the account so it doesn't reflect badly on you. However, I changed the password to random characters before I blocked it, this means that no one will ever be able to use it. With regard to the "social networking" message I posted on your talk page last night: I noticed you have created a rather elaborate "Buddy List" system in your userspace. The message was a heads-up about how that sort of thing is viewed here.. And finally, if I might make an observation, it's rather ironic you chose a name like Anon126 - then put personal contact info on your userpage :) It sort of negates the whole 'Anon' thing. --Versa geek 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Xlinkbot revision of youtube link

the bot added a trailing ".html" to the euell gibbons page. i don't know much about the workings of wikipedia, but perhaps you could add another regex rule to "youtube\.com" and have it, somehow, merely flag matching entries that also have "commercial", instead of an instant revision ? This is assuming the linked pages' commercials are fair use... 158.247.99.74 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Undo

You have undone all my edits on Nithyananda. I added a new link to youtubes, deleted multiple links to the same website and also fixed the broken links. If you are not happy with the youtube link, you can undo but I don't know whay you have undone everything I did. Karthik99 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik99 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the bot's edit. --Versa geek 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How to add external link.

Past month and today i tried to add my external link on call centre result page. But all the time my link was removed. Please suggest me how i cam go with my company information like others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.15.97 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest posting the link on the article's talk page and asking other regular editors of that page if they think it should be included. --Versa geek 22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply please check these url which i think to add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_centre

url want to add

http://www.callcentersindia.com/call_centers_news.php
http://www.vcarecallcenter.com/cisco_cci.php (Call center technology) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.5.2 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Even I tried adding my site [12] to the category, but not able to do so. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.154.182 (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Colonial meeting house page

Hi, and thanks for your help (I'm a newbee). I've made a few changes to add ISBNs, and a slight addition to the text that follows the external reference. Under the Discussion page I have made some notes why I think it is important to keep the external reference. I would welcome your comments. Thanks.Paul wainwright photography (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Capacity Development

Not nonsense? "These capacity gap can related to ability to deliver on goals/mission or as the UN System Staff College reflects in it's training material gaps may refer specifically to gaps of claim holders to claim their rights and duty bearers to meet their duties" is not nonsense? Okay, English isn't my first language but as far as I can tell this comes straight out of Dilbert. Channel ® 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

heh, yeah.. sometimes the real-world actually resembles Dilbert.. I'm doing some research on the term now. I'll see if I can make it a bit less er.. Orwellian. --Versa geek 00:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interconnect agreement

AfD nomination of Interconnect agreement

An article that you have been involved in editing, Interconnect agreement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interconnect agreement. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Wrs1864 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot problem?

I noticed (and I dont know if anybody else let you know about it yet), that XLinkBot had been reverting a legit edit on the Lenny Dykstra page, taking out a section mentioning about Dykstra's son being drafted by the Milwaukee Brewers. I figured I would let you know about it so you could possibly fix up the problem with the bot. Whammies Were Here 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit. Technically it is correct, it was removing a blogspot external link, as these are very often problematic. In this case the link was a reference (if it was formatted as a reference the bot would probably have ignored it) using a blogspot post (not always a reliable source ..). The editor did the correct thing, revert the bot (it will not revert again). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello "Versageek", my name is Ivan Ramos. I am the main editor for the non existing article DJ I.R.. I would like to know why do you think it is inappropriate to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndiesDJIR (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the 10 different deleted versions of that title meet Wikipedia's standards, that is why they were deleted. --Versa geek 03:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The link in world wide web

I'm sorry if i offend you, it will not happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeveteca (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

my link was removed again. i do not how it is different than this link..... http://www.blather.net/shitegeist/2005/09/return_to_st_br.htm.... which is still there. both mine and that link are blog pictures of the holy well. Clodagh831 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clodagh831 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

deleting content

I wish you would have asked before deleting the covenant page, which information I couldn't find anywhere on wikipedia and so added it in an attempt to help. Thanks! -R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdpack (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Xlinkbot reversion.. question.

Hello, I'm just getting started editing here at wikipedia and I was curious why my edit was reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chernobyl_disaster&oldid=220301822

I'd hate to make the same mistake again!

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SolidScribe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Astrology links

Hi... Noticed that you deleted a few links on Vastu and Astrology wiki page. Any reason in particular. The articles are loaded with very good pointers for the general public to benefit from. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbb0ffice (talk • contribs) 05:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure the site has some useful information, Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. If there is material of an encyclopedic nature which isn't covered in our article, please consider adding the information to the article, rather than adding an external link. --Versa geek 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Deletion of DJ I.R.?

Hey Versageek! I was just wondering why did you do multiple deletions for DJ I.R.? Share Your thoughts about it. Do you think it would ever be apart of wikipedia's website? Tell me what you think! Judeging by the deletion log and its protection, i'm guessing it might not be apart of wikipedia. But why did you put it up or deletion or whatever u did? please write back as soon as possible! have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndiesDJIR (talk • contribs) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

He has to be famous/well known in the industry FIRST, then he might qualify for a page on Wikipedia. --Versa geek 18:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Is There a way to do it with out doing it by hand? E E 17:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You could probably find someone who uses AWB to do it.. I see it's been tagged again, although 'what links here' still shows transclusions.. (it could be that the database hasn't caught up).. once 'what links here' is clear, it can be deleted. --Versa geek 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Theres no transclusions.E E 18:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See [13]E E 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Need Exact Guidelines

I have tried repeatedly to find out wikipedia's guidelines for notability and criteria in order for a page to not be deleted.

As it stands a page I have spent hours on keeps getting deleted and I need the following:

1: Exactly what criteria my page needs to meet so it may not be deleted. I have tried repeatedly to find this and have had no luck. I need a link or something.

2: Exactly who I need to speak with once the page is finished to make sure my work is not deleted. I need exact instructions to speak with an administrator to make sure my page will not be deleted. —Preceding Sopwith21 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected Title

The Book THE STAND: The Final Flight of Lt. Frank Luke, Jr. will be released in September and cannot wait two months for the title to be unprotected. The book falls into the category of World War 1 history, which is a small niche market. In all likelihood it will never garnish enough popularity for you to reconsider. I created this page so that the few people who are interested in this market could go to wikipedia and find out information on the book itself. Please reconsider.

I noticed another mistake

On the Mark E. Smith article, XLinkBot reverted a YouTube link, but then deleted all the content and replaced the page with "1". Hmm...can this be fixed? SchfiftyThree 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the coding of the reversion mechanism a bit. The problem is, this is very hard to test, as it has something to do with XLinkBot not being able to retrieve the previous revision for some abnormal reason. I hope the mechanism now tests for that, please let one of us know if it does this again (as it seems to be very rare, I did not hear about this happening in mainspace). Thanks for reporting this! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcel

Another user just left me a comment regarding the article Arcel. Apparently it was initally about a type of foam that may be notable before someone overwrote it to be about a band. Could you please check into this, since you're the one who speedied it? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gah! I hate when I miss article hijackings like that! I've restored it.. I tried to find some refs for the foam subject, but most of the stuff on Google is derived from Nova press releases.. Thanks for the heads up! --Versa geek 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BasketBallNewZealand2007.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BasketBallNewZealand2007.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I copied the FUR from this image to the one that was used to replace it & deleted the one I uploaded. --Versa geek 19:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision Mistake

On July 10th 2008 XLinkBot made a revision to the external links of the Omaha Public Library. This revision, however, actually reverted a correct change made by an Omaha Public Library staff member. When Nice posted the myspace page link they were given a page that was a rough attempt no longer being used/updated. The Omaha Public Library staff member in charge of the Myspace page caught this and changed it to the correct page. The old page no longer is use is http://www.myspace.com/omahapubliclibrary while the newer one is http://www.myspace.com/omahapubliclib Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I-710 north extension

I thought the I-710 north extension to I-210 is unliely to ever been pass. The main problem is causes alot of damages to numerous of small towns up n Pasadena. Do you think they will ever extend the I-710? To me, I doubt its ever going to happen.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Guillermo Zubiaga

Versageek, Hello my name is Guillermo Zubiaga a Basque comic book artist living and working in the U.S. I recently posted an article about me ( Guillermo Zubiaga) only to find out it was deleted by you on July 22nd. I new at wikipedia so I would very much like to know the reason for this censorship, Did I perhaps brake any Wikipedia protocol?

Looking forward to hear from you. Thanks

Sincerely

Guillermo Zubiaga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillermo Zubiaga (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Rose

There are no reliable sources for ANYTHING that is claimed this supposedly renowned "musician", never mind her passing. I suggest the article should be immediately removed, as it is clearly a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.24.81 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Bot

Hi, um your bot reverted an edit of mine for 'posting of an unwanted external link' when all I did was move an external link from the article main section to the related websites section. Your bot reverted this to where it was orignally, in the wrong place. It's now done this twice, so can you stop it. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

deletion of link to letterofcreditforum.com

HI Versageek,

I wondered why you deleted my link to letterofcreditforum.com.

If you look around on the internet, my site is the most detailed, academic, and extensive on the subject.

If you compare letterofcreditforum.com to other sites, you will notice, that we have profound articles on the topic, sample documents used in LC transactions, (my section on cases is still weak but I am working on it). The forum is not just a bla bla forum but experts from around the world discuss real life problems.

I am preparing the translation of a commentary of the UCP 600, update the article in the front...

No other site offers as much quality information.

Encarta links to the site why not Wikipedia ?

I have read the policies regarding linking. I have works on the site, whose copyright lie with me and my father (articles and a book previously published on letters of credit whose copyright has reverted to us). Also, it is not just a forum (to which you should not link due to the doubtful quality of comments). I have included some basic and advanced tools on letters of credit to augment the level of dicussion.

I do not see any violation of the linking policies and would appreciate if you could revert your decision.

Best regards,

Nratlos (last change 08/06/08 11:48 PST)

Links to forums are generally discouraged by our external links policy, and you clearly have a conflict of interest. If you feel that the site is a good resource that should be linked, I suggest mentioning it on the article talk pages. If other regular editors agree with your assessment of the site & it's content, the link can be added to the article(s). --Versa geek 19:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Versageek, I will do as suggested and enter it on the talk page. Reviewing the conflict of interest guidelines of Wikipedia, I do not see that I have a conflict of interest. I publish scientific articles on the topic which are absolutely not one-sided. I collect relevant materials. When I comment on the forum it is in a neutral manner solely intended to further the discussion and understanding of the topic. Again, links on forums are discouraged by Wikipedia because of the nature of a forum and the quality of forum contributions. However, even though the site is called letterofcreditforum, it is more than a forum, since, as I mentioned, I provide absolutely neutral material. Would you mind being a little more specific in regards to the allegation of a conflict of interest and what exactly you believe is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines when linking to a site which has "forum" in its name but offers a lot more material than simply discussions. I simply ask to get a better understanding of the Wikipedia community. Thanks (and sorry for my wordy response) nratlos 00:57:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on your statements, you either own or operate the site, which gives you a conflict of interest. In such cases, it is always best to ask others to review the site before adding the URL to articles. --Versa geek 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte Fisk

I am looking for a copy of the article on Charlotte Fisk that you apparently deleted on 23 Jan 2008. Do you know where I might find a copy? If not, can you restore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.154.130 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't provide that content. It was a completely unsourced & unverifiable page about a living person. --Versa geek 03:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.154.130 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Did not solicit links from wikipedia users

I am the coordinator of the Dromoz Project. "Dromoz is a user-contributed and user-maintained directory of real, physical places in Malaysia. It is NOT about websites and it is NOT a search engine." You can read more about the project here: www.dromoz dot com/all_about/what_is_dromoz/

I refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Malaysia/Archive_1#dromoz.com_has_been_blacklisted_due_to_spamming We did not solicit external links from any wikipedia user. Do not tarnish our name because of the actions of an overzealous contributor. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.61.251 (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Btw, all wikipedia users are welcomed to use our maps FOC by saving directly from www.dromoz dot com/directory/maps/ There is no need for any wikipedia user to link externally to our pages. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.61.251 (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Social Security Disability links

Hello Freedomforall227! Welcome to Wikipedia! We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, some of your recent contributions do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. For more information on this, see:

I have attempted to add what I consider a useful resource link to the page and have also tried to delete a reference section that contains two PRweb press releases that were bought and paid for by a private company that attempts to recruit clients nationwide. Please. Give me a break. Do you work for Allsup? Are you being paid to promote their site and services? I suspect the answer is yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomforall227 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond of PRweb press releases being used as references; however, the solution isn't blanking the entire {{reflist}}, but rather to find a better reference (such as a US Government site) for the material in question. Had you not removed the refs, I might have been less concerned about your link addition. --Versa geek 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Prince's Youth Business International

Hi - Why have you deleted 'The Prince's Youth Business International'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YBI (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't, User:DragonflySixtyseven deleted it. I deleted a redirect that was pointing to a page which no longer existed. The note in the deletion log suggests that the page was a copyright violation. --Versa geek 17:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

A while back one of your attempts at disambiguation created a boatload of new ambiguity. You renamed me and awarded my name to a fellow who had recently started using it himself. How confusing.

Well, the other fellow lost re-election (it was a landslide, see http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/election/2008/prim/races_prim/20.htm) earlier this month.

Versageek, can I have my name back now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since no one had commented about my talk page message on renaming, I went ahead & renamed the page to Bob Beers (politician). --Versa geek 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Long train runnin'

You beat me to it by 30 seconds. Thanks for being on the ball. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

VPILF

Hi there, I noticed you recently deleted my redirection of VPILF to Sarah Palin because it was unsourced and had possible negative BLP issues.

I agree that there should not be a page titled VPILF for these reasons, which is why I created the redirect in the first place. Better that people be redirected to a non-POV page searching for VPILF than stonewalling them because of such issues.

I understand that wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for original research, and can find plenty of reasonable sources from many different parties referring to Palin as a VPILF. Just google the term and you'll find all the hits from the front page refer to her and her alone. People are using this term and some getting interested in politics for the first time because of it.

However offensive it may be, the term is notable. While inclusion in the Palin article may be a bit much, I feel my redirect was a reasonable compromise. Wikipedia does not censor itself, and it contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive or pornographic. You may find the term offensive, but people will be searching for it, and they deserve to be taken to the right place.

Therefore I request that your decision be reversed, or at least explained in further detail. Thanks. -Buttle (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer you take this to WP:DRV, while you make a convincing argument - I'm still concerned about the WP:BLP aspect & would like to hear what other members of the community have to say on the issue. --Versa geek 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable. I have submitted request. Buttle (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Psuedoscience

I noticed that you removed my category-changes from Pseudoscience. What i removed constitute examples of a serious ongoing problem with the abuse of the category identifier "Pseudoscience" when in fact the items contained therein aren't themselves psuedoscientific or in fact proclaimed to be so. This is encouraging a debilitation of Wikipedia's content and should be stopped by Wiki's administrators. I noticed on your User page that you are a self-described "Skeptic", which indicates to me that, in combination with this action you may be a compromised administrator. Thanks for making yourself known.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to get a consensus before removing the psuedoscience designation from those categories. I have no strong feelings on the designation myself. I'll thank you in advance for assuming good faith and not assailing my character and integrity. I suspect your definition of skeptic differs considerably from mine. --Versa geek 06:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot

Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#XLinkBot:_Worst._Bot._Ever.? Corvus cornix_talk 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

done, thanks --Versa geek 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: please slow down

I do indeed agree with the first part, and I do apologize for that. However, the second revert you listed added incorrect information to the page, as well as removing information, such as the stock trading symbol and changing the revenue information to info from 2006. miquonranger03 (talk)

Never mind. I'm slapping myself with a trout. Thanks for warning me. miquonranger03 (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

y is your bot blocking 'thesportsinterview.com' links

Y are these Chris Yandek interviews blocked? For ex, this Sanaa Lathan interview is good.
70.108.71.78 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

according to XLinkBot's RevertList log, the link has been spammed by a series of IPs that have been connected to the site owner/operator. A quick check of the link addition database confirms that it was spammed heavily by a small group of IPs. As a user not in that group of IPs, if you feel the link is appropriate for this article, you may revert the bot. --Versa geek 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

James Settelmyer

Did you have any problems in moving that page? I kept clicking the move button, and nothing happened. Corvus cornix_talk 06:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it worked for me the first time. I was thinking maybe you conflicted with an edit by the original author.. (eg: trying to move an old version?).. not sure, just a thought. --Versa geek 07:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I was able to move Matt lee ok. Corvus cornix_talk 07:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"controversy" of "Japanese People"

Your bot reverted my change made on "controversy" of "Japanese People". I've spent time to do my research and it shouldn't be reverted. Please check the changes and be a responsible human being. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.132.132 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of diversity and inclusion

This is a very important concept in the diversity profession. If it appeared as advertisement, let's fix that. I have been creating pages for more than year now and have learned a considerable amount about what is needed to make a contribution. Your deletion with a comment about "deliberate advertising" needs some sort of explanation. Otherwise, it appears prejudiced, biased, and unwilling to work with contributors. I am certain that was not your intent, but I think you can see how I came to this conclusion if you think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diversityu (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The combination of the tone of article and your username - which appears to promote an organization, tipped the scales on this one.. However, I did see value in the subject matter, which you are clearly familiar with. This is why I placed a welcome template at the top of your talk page, above all those notices about deletion. I do suggest that you change your username, or simply abandon this account and create a new one that doesn't reflect a corporate entity. This would help prevent misunderstandings in the future. --Versa geek 06:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Short sales

I have recreated the redirect you deleted as an "implausible typo." Google News archives[14] has 16,800 hits using this term, and Google Book search [15]has 1456 instances of "short sales" referring to the topic covered in the target article. It is not implausible, nor is it a tyop. It is just an alternate and widely used for over 100 years for the practice of selling stock you do not hold in hopes the price will drop. Regards. Edison (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had intended to recreate it myself after deleting the underlying spam content, but got distracted by a phone call and never got back to it (yes, I have the attention span of a fruit fly. %-( ). FWIW, in the future, in 99.5% of the cases, if you place a redirect over an existing page, you should remove all the other content.. in this case, the page still had the csd-g11 tag on it, so it was appearing in the category for speedy deletion. --Versa geek 06:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the deletion of the spam article. I do not perform a great deal of redirecting. A redirect effectively makes the old article disappear unless one is persistent, but deletion is better for the likes of this. Edison (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is XLinkBot working?

Please see the relavent AN thread. Thanks! NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside Edit

Hello Versageek. I wanted to respond to your bot's reversion of the link to http://www.YouTube.com/idiotikink from the Chris DiSalvatore entry. The user 'idiotikink' at the YouTube page is not Chris DiSalvatore, and has committed many copyright violations online. Feel free to delete anything that may come from this user, and any link that directs to 'idiotikink' in any form. My apologies for the concern. Timmy4412 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Observatory Photo

Hi Versageek!

You have a very nice image at Image:MariaMitchellObservatory_NantucketMA.jpg. Unfortunately, this is not the Maria Mitchell Observatory, it is the Loines Observatory built in 1968 by the then Director of the Maria Mitchell Observatory, Dr. Dorrit Hoffleit. Perhaps the photograph could be used on Dorrit's page. It's a fine photograph, but its not the right observatory. :-)

I had the opportunity to observe a rare configuration of the Galilean satellites from the Loines Observatory on the evening of 17 October, and stayed at the Maria Mitchell Observatory dorms during that time period. -Richard "Doc" Kinne (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC), Astronomical Technologist, AAVSO.

Jeeze, I sure feel silly :( Thanks for letting me know! I've only been to Nantucket once.. and clearly didn't interpret the sign properly. Just out of curiosity. Where is the actual Maria Mitchell Observatory, in relation to the one in my photo? --Versa geek 02:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry

About the Sydney Harbor redirect. I did not understand the situation. Please accept my apologies.

(By the way, can you elucidate me on what is going on with the whole redirect situation?) RJaguar3 | u | t 04:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

np, I suppose it's silly to play their game, but I was kind of hoping the Attack on Sydney Harbour page would have been reverted by the time the reader makes it back the second time via the redirect.. it may or may not work, that remains to be seen. --Versa geek 05:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be wrong with just deleting and WP:SALTing the redirect? RJaguar3 | u | t 05:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was salted when I created it.. but the concept I'm aiming for is that the enduser/reader never realizes that they were redirected.. (unless they read that little "redirected from" thing at the top).. I'll delete & resalt it in a little while. --Versa geek 05:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I stepped on your toes – I got the RfD notice on my talk page and deleted it quickly. I'm not sure what you were trying to do, but if you need to undelete and redirect, no problems from this end. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting it, now that a different page is TFA, it was obsolete.. not sure it did what I wanted, but it was worth a try. --Versa geek 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

calculator removals

Those two calculators were perfect for the debt consolidation entry. They dealt precisely with the material being presented. Why did you revert them?

Ooper01 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

Why do you keep removing my external links? If you bothered to go to the link, you will see that it goes to the same website... No harm done and everyone will be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.100.81 (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:75.126.36.154

Hi, if you see IPs making edits like those on their talk page, check if it's under any hardblocked ranges first by clicking "Rangeblock finder". Blocking anon. only allows the vandal to edit from that IP using an account created from a different address. Spellcast (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gutenburg.org is ok but librivox.org and coopaudiobooks.org are not?

Hi,

I feel the edit I made to "The Tin Woodman of Oz" ads value to Wikipedia.org and is useful to wikipedia readers. Yes I do "sell" the CD version of the audiobooks but for a very fair low price. I also point out where one could download the audio book for free. I feel I am providing a service.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.217.135 (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I might not have reverted your additions had they not been worded as such blatant advertisements. You may not promote products or services via Wikipedia. --Versa geek 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages

Hi
Just FYI, I mentioned a user talk page you protected at WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages since it's one of a great number of indef semi protected user talk pages. I'm explicitly not complaining or reporting, it just happened to be one that I used as an example, since it's in principle against WP:SEMI.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

For Developing an Awesome Bot!

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		To the developer of the most useful and overworked bot on Wikipedia. It reverts spam in the blink of an eye, thus allowing editors to... well, edit. Paxse (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A splendid bot that saves me a hell of a lot of time. By concentrating only on old links (thanks to your bot), I'm now finally beginning to get ahead of the spam in Cambodia-related articles. I've reviewed many, many, many of your bots edits to articles on my watchlist and today found the very first occasion when some decent content had been rolled-back along with the inappropriate link - this was easily fixed. That's a damn good average. I hope my editing history is half as good. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of the XLinkBot team, (Beetstra, Nixeagle, Shadow1, myself and the folks who feed our RevertList), Thanks! --Versa geek 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

picture

please leave the picture I upload on nalts alone. I have permission from the author. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jischinger (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits... but it is not necessary

Please do not edit matter which you know nothing about. The information that has been attached is both accurate and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.201.148.183 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the information is correct, however it is not verifiable since the site you use as a reference, established by an unknown 'group of investment companies' of unknown veracity, is restricted to 'clients only'. Furthermore, you are adding this information to multiple articles. If you wish to include this information in Wikipedia articles, I suggest you first discuss the content and site at WikiProject Investement and/or WikiProject Business. --Versa geek 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP for a while as a determined spammer and also resistant to Clue. Perhaps while he's blocked he can find out the rules on WP:OR, sourcing stuff from random websites and speculation in general. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please add to XlinkBots list of search and destroy

I have removed this from half a dozen articles, but would like to know if it is possible to add to the XlinkBots list of search and destroy links:

http://www.titillasian.com/

It is always followed by the tagline of "Hundreds of free, high-quality pictures" Thanks!-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Class Action Lawsuit Links

So I cannot place any affiliate marketing type links on Wiki, despite their relevance to a topic? Is there a way I can do this without compromising the integrity of Wiki? I apologize for the mistake.

Scream Club article

why was it deleted, the reason says blatant copyright enfringement but what specifically warranted the whole article to be removed on band? Lol jack (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a direct copy of promotional material from this URL. If a page is a clear copyvio from it's initiation and there is no non-copyvio version to revert to - standard practice is to delete the page. In addition, the page was clearly promotional in nature & would have required a substantial rewrite to be non-promotional, this is also one of our criteria for speedy deletion. --Versa geek 14:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing vandalism.

In order to restore the page on the Guggenheim Museum I was working back through history, some of which briefly restored other vandalism, to return to the last, best, UNvandalised version. I didn't know how to simply jump back to a much earlier and accurate version of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Essitam (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no spam from dnabaser.com in the last month.

There was no spam from dnabaser.com in the last month. The program is listed in 2 pages in Wikipedia, in the special LINK section. The format is correct. The program fits into that category. The link or description of the program is not promotional at all. In other words, there is no more spam. (If I am not right, then please define the spam or post a reason for which the entry should be removed).

Still a child named Bachev continued to delete the entries without any explanation. From my side, I promise there will be no more spam (as you can already see).

Please check and see if the program was placed in un-proper places in the last month (in other words no more spam) and unblock my URL - everything will be fine; I promise.

Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.167.44 (talk • contribs)

I hate to break this to you, but there has been no discussion on this page, as discussion requires two parties. What you did was make a declaration. You need to discuss this issue on the articles where you would like to include your information. I don't have enough background in the subject matter (DNA, etc... ) to say whether or not your information belongs in the articles in question - however, continuing to add it to articles without attempting discussion with regular editors of articles on these subjects is probably the most certain way to ensure it is never included. I strongly suggest you either go to the individual article discussion pages, or WikiProject Molecular & Cellular Biology and actually discuss the matter. --Versa geek 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Ming Dao page Hi. I was wondering if you could help me to clear out some of the "weasel" language on that page. Is Thanks. Azuredlite (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sahib Faraz

Would you be so kind as to fullprot that? The user keeps recreating it. // roux 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sagar amalgamations

Dear Varsageek,

are you people are why you have always deleting my sagar amalgamations article always are you crazy or mental yes you people are behavior is like mental behavior is like kindly change up your mental behavior why you are always deleting my company's article always just dont do that ok is Ima included any sex meterials tell me just dont do that I warn you I will write the article within a few days just accept it dont delete it fine.

Best regards

Ranjit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.216.143 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to figure out what article/page you are speaking about. If you are writing about a company, please read our notability guidelines for corporations. --Versa geek 08:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive - please don't edit here.. new messages should be posted on My Talk Page

User:Versageek/Talk/Archive/2

Response to message sent about external link contributions

Shobana Chandrakumar's page changed

William Jefferys entry

ADHD

Deletion of links

== additions to Category:Recyclable materials ==

Abuse of authority in Trita Parsi's page.

Ingushetiya.ru, former Www.ingushetiya.ru

MyWikiBiz.com on the SquelchBot blacklist

thank you

Please Help Removing the Pictures Of Holy Prophet Muhammad

Oleo

The da Vinci Barnstar

Deleting my contributions to Wikipedia

Your psycho-bot is removing inter-Wikipedia Links

Business Broker page

Career Pathways

getVEQ.com

TEL I.T. NETWORK

Warning about copyrights infringement about Caracal pistol page

Query about deletion of You Tube link

XLinkBot

XLinkBot & WP:BITE

youtube.com & XLinkBot

Recent post

Sorry, but we do not understand your reasons for removing our post.

issue with a editor on a wiki page

Group B videos

Your bot request

millipede

yummy poem

User Talk:69.140.157.227

letterwhiz.com on blacklist

deletion of Espacenet redirect

Kat Young

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Holla.jpg

Mynheer

Thank you

Admiration for XLinkBot

False positive?

South Maury Island

Spam?

Thoughts

Deletion of Carl Stanley McGee was unwarranted

Withdrawn Article For Deletion

Adjustable gastric band talk page discussion

Register.com deletion

Youtube external link undone by XLinkBot

Youtube external link undone by XLinkBot 2

Linthicum Article link undone

Thanks...

Pankration Section and Link Deletion

Bug

eh

Your bot is removing legitimate YouTube links

unwarranted reversion by XLINKBOT

Zoor is not illegal or spam

Regarding that "Toofy" guy.

Reversions

Author page change revert

Ourgle

Regarding the help.

proof as a political party.

Just a little reminder

Thank You...

My link got removed even though it was the offical Myspace page to the movie

Account creation blocking and autoblock disabling

About Anonymous126...

About Anonymous126 (again)

Xlinkbot revision of youtube link

Wrong Undo

How to add external link.

Colonial meeting house page

Interconnect agreement

AfD nomination of Interconnect agreement

XLinkBot problem?

Hi!

The link in world wide web

deleting content