User talk:Dnyhagen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links you are adding

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Seeking to include my Radio History Site

The problem is that it is your site, and you can't simply link to your websites in Wikipedia on your own, to the best of my knowledge. As I warned you, you shouldn't add links to your own websites on articles. I am not a person that determines "what does or does not get included within Wikipedia" (in fact, I am just a user, not a person who deals with the big higher-up stuff. Nor do I or anyone else control any part of Wikipedia -- that would be ownership of articles), I was just trying to revert in good faith because spamlinks usually arrive in bunches. Remember, you should add content too, not just links. The site is, of course, more than welcome as a source for such content, however. You may wish to read what Wikipedia is not to find out what is not acceptable for Wikipedia -- this determines what should be included or not, which you needed to do. You could always ask Jimbo Wales or any of our administrators, though I don't know if you will get the response you hoped. Sorry this was long, but that was needed to get the necessary details out of the way. Thank you. Oh, and I should note that the end of your note seems to be advertising-like to me. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Lindy Hop. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 16:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding commercial links to Wikipedia, as you did in Woodie. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 16:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did in Longboard (surfing), you will be blocked from editing. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Notability

Yes, I did add the {{notability}} tag to the Digital Deli Online article. I did this because it is not apparent whether the article meets inclusion criteria, particularly the notability criteria WP:WEB. Yes, Wikipedia articles are works-in-progress. Many articles start out in very rough shape and are later expanded. However, in order to remain here, articles must meet certain criteria. One of the most important criteria is verifiability. In a nutshell, this means that the content and topic of an article must be verifiable; each article needs citations from reliable sources for its content. If an article topic is obscure or new, then many times such a topic will not be mentioned in any reliable sources and thus fail WP:V.

Now many times when I see a non-notable article I immediately put it up for deletion (WP:CSD, WP:AFD, or WP:PROD). However, I was not completely sure about this article and as such merely tagged it with the notability tag. It essentially says that I don't think the article meets inclusion criteria, but I'm not yet certain it ought to be put up for deletion. Yes, the tag itself does reference pornography. The tag lists the various notability topic, and one of those topics is pornography-related. Wikipedia is not censored, and nobody owns their contributions, so to quote from WP:OWN:

| If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it

If you would prefer that the article be deleted, however, I believe it would still be considered deletable as "author request". To do this, just add {{db-author}} (including the curly brackets) to the top of the article, and an administrator will review the request.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

First and foremost, I am not a "super-user", admin, or anything else other than a regular editor. A fairly experienced editor, yes, but not one with any more "powers" than you or any other new editor. As Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, if several other editors disagree with my placement of the {{notability}} tag, then it can be removed. However, (and more likely), the article will either need to be improved first, or deleted (if the article is unable to meet notability standards).

I'm not sure what original question you had that I haven't yet covered. All the article would need to improve is evidence that it meets WP:WEB. If you can provide references from reliable sources that prove that it meets WP:WEB, I'd be happy to help you add them to the article, which would make the tag in question obsolete and thus removable. WP:V is also an appropriate policy to review.

Regarding the whole pornography reference -- I'm sorry that you are so upset by the mention of it in the tag. However if you read the tag carefully, it says that the article doesn't appear to meet one of the list of criteria. A reader can quickly determine that the pornography reference doesn't apply at all, as the article is about a website. As such, there's no reason that anyone looking at the article ought to make any sort of connection between pornography and Digital Deli Online at all. Digital Deli Online is not being "linked to pornography" by the presence of the tag. The tag itself is used quite frequently at Wikipedia, so Digital Deli Online is most certainly not being singled out either. Just browse through Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance and you'll see many articles with the exact same tag. Check out this link too to see a list of all the articles that contain it [1].

If you're still convinced of the inappropriateness of the tag itself, however, feel free to mention it on the talk page of the tag (Template talk:Notability).

If you disagree that the tag is necessary on this article, you have a couple options. You can post a message on the article's talk page (Talk:Digital Deli Online) to that effect and ask for input. However, as a new article it isn't likely to be seen by very many people, so it may take a while to respond. You can also post a message to Wikipedia:Third opinion, asking for a neutral 3rd-party opinion on the matter.

Regarding the question of how long the tag will remain, it should remain in place until the questions it raises have been addressed, a consensus of editors feels that it isn't necessary, or the article is nominated for deletion.

For your convenience, here is a list of the policies, guidelines, and other resources that are linked to above:

• WP:WEB
• WP:N
• WP:V
• WP:CITE
• WP:RS
• WP:3O

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the links that I removed, the problem with those links is that first, you are adding links to websites you are affiliated with. Second, you are adding the link to multiple articles. Please read through WP:SPAM (Wikipedia guidelines regarding spam), particularly the section titled "how not to be a spammer". That section details the reason why adding those links wasn't appropriate. Links don't necessarily have to be commercial in nature to be considered spam.

If you feel a link to your site would be useful on a particular article, you do have an option: mention it on the article's talk page, and allow the other regular editors of the article to reach a consensus regarding its inclusion. If they feel it is useful to the article, it can be added with the weight of the consensus to back it.

I can assure you that the removal of the links was not personal. This is a regular task that I perform here, and constitutes a large portion of my time here. Wikipedia is not here to promote other websites, and as Wikipedia is aiming for a print version, its articles are in need of more cited content, not more external links. Every editor who adds links to their own website of course believes they are useful and relevant to Wikipedia, but in order to help ensure neutrality it's truly best to allow other editors to determine the value of the link on a case-by-case basis (by using the talk page method above).

Now, regarding the Digital Deli Online article itself, I have read through the links you have added. It would be helpful if more could be found; especially another reliable source that discusses DDO in depth (to supplement the Family First reference). I think, however, that this is a good start, and I feel comfortable at this point in removing the {{notability}} tag, which I will do shortly after writing this message.

I do have another recommendation for the article; I suggest trimming the article down so that it focuses on DDO itself. Information about the Golden Age of Radio should primarily be in an article on this topic (Old-time radio), and a discussion of the subject should be much more brief. Please don't take this as a criticism of your writing at all. In fact, I think it would be a good idea if you merged the first 3 paragraphs into the Old-time radio article. Then, the Digital Deli Online article can remain focused on the site itself.

Regarding your question of oversight, there is a dispute resolution process that you can follow if you still feel my actions have been inappropriate. Probably the easiest first step would be to use Wikipedia:Third opinion. You can post your request there according to the guidelines and a neutral third party will weigh in. 3O is just one step in the dispute resolution process. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for the entire process. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The battle you described against other less-useful links being spammed is very close to the same battle us spam-fighters face every day. Wikipedia is simply being flooded with external links. Many of them "slip past the radar", as it seems many did according to your description of them. Many times all we can do is watch the new links that are added, and unfortunately time does not always allow review of existing links. If you do find links that are not appropriate (WP:EL is a good guideline to use for determining this), I strongly encourage you to either: a) Discuss the links on the article's talk page like you did on my talk page, or b)be bold and remove them yourself.

There's really no such thing as a "super user" here. There are 2 types of users: Editor and Administrator. Admins are given access to tools that regular editors do not, but even admins are held to the same standards as editors. Any editor can raise a discussion on a talk page, can tag an article with a cleanup tag, and edit and remove content boldly. If you see anything that needs to be changed, whether it be content that needs to be rewritten with proper citations or links that need removing, please do follow one of the 2 methods I mention above.

From your description, your website does seem much more noble and useful than many other links I see littered about. However, it's still appropriate, as you run the site, to use the talk page method for your own links. Discussions may get heated, other editors may disagree, and those whose links may be vying for space with yours may criticize, but ultimately by using the discussion method, stating your thoughts calmly and clearly, the best outcome for Wikipedia almost always results.

You have just as much power at Wikipedia to improve an article as I, other editors, and even administrators do. There's even a template message that says in a nutshell what I said above: {{sofixit}} (appropriately names, if you ask me :) ). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

P.S.: since it does sound like you are truly interested in helping Wikipedia, allow me to formally welcome you to the project with a welcome message, which contains many useful guidelines, policies, and other information you might find helpful:

Hello Dnyhagen! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --AbsolutDan (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thank you, but I already need your assistance again. I found and removed some 220+ spam links last night, but I was at a loss how to 'annotate' them, once I'd deleted the offensive links. The 220 I found and deleted were as follows: a.) they were all posted by two anonymous sources, b). they referenced the exact same two sites (otrsite.com and freeotrshows.com) over 90 times each (both of which should be banned for spam link abuse. How does one initiate this?], as did radiolovers.com (28 links), libsyn.com (23 links), and otrcat.com (18 links), c.) many of them simply opened a media player page without warning, and d.) they all promote a commercial endeavor (mostly 'OTR' .mp3 sales or membership to their sites}. Dnyhagen 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If the edits are coming from a small number of accounts or IP addresses, those IPs/accounts can be warned and if need be blocked. If you want to list them on my talk page, I'll take a look and leave a warning if appropriate. Going forward, keep those articles on your watchlist. If the same links are added by different IPs/accounts, then the blacklist can come into play. They'll only consider blacklisting though if the link additions can't be prevented with user blocks. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not above issuing an apology when merited. In the past three days, I've noticed that both you and others have indeed corrected the spam link issues. I thank you for showing me that the system works. I do have another question. Apparently someone with an anonymous account User talk:64.126.42.87 has re-issued the 'Notability' notice on The Digital Deli Online. I was under the impression that this issue had been resolved. Also it appears that the notice was posted by someone who's recently been warned about their own link spam violations. Can you give me some guidance or suggestions on how to proceed? Help? Thanks. Dnyhagen 18:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me moving this conversation down a bit, I think it's a bit easier to follow with it all below the welcome message.

Ok I did a bit of poking around. While Pepto (talk • contribs) may favor certain links, I'm not convinced he's here solely to promote them. Time-wise, he/she has actually been editing Wikipedia more than twice as long as I have, and has edited articles on a huge variety of topics. While they may have done some similar editing, I'm not convinced that Pepto is connected to any of the other IPs/accounts you mention either. See this message that Pepso left on the talk page of one of those IPs: [2]. I think any issues you may have with Pepto's edits should probably be handled by attempting to initiate a dialogue with him/her, perhaps on his/her talk page.

On the other hand, the two IPs you mention, 64.126.42.87 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) and 64.126.81.5 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) are probably the same person. They both have almost exactly the same contribution history. Also, check out the WHOIS link on both - they have the same ISP. However, the editing histories do not overlap, and in fact there is almost a 6 month gap between them. As such, my guess is that the latter is the first IP address of the editor, sometime in between the editor's IP address changed, and thus the former is the editor's new address. Since the latter address has been "dormant" since March, I think it's safe to assume that we can ignore that address, as the odds of the same person obtaining a repeat IP address in what appears to be a range of over 30,000 IP addresses is slim indeed!

Regarding Otrbuff (talk • contribs), that account has made only one edit, back in May. Perhaps it was an account that one of those IPs signed up for, but gave up on, forgot the password, or forgot to check the "remember me" option and doesn't realize that he/she is now editing under their IP again. With only one edit on the account, it'd be nearly impossible to guess whether it is or not. There is a "checkuser" feature that certain higher-ups can use to determine what IP address a user uses, but they won't take a case on unless an account has a fair amount of abusive edits.

At this point I think the active IP is the source we should focus on. Warning messages have already been left on the IP's talk page. If the editor continues with his/her shenanigans, further warnings can be applied and a block issued if the warnings go unheeded.

I can see that the the deletion listing was taken care of already, but let me know if there's anything about it (or other issues) that you'd like to discuss further. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it was User:Pepso not Pepto if that helps any further. It's kinda uncanny how many of the otrcat.com and otrsite.com spam he/she has posted over the past 6 mos. So much in sync with the anonymous I.P. addresses that it seems extremely coincidental. And, thanks, and yes there are already. User:Wmahan reapplied a prod to The Digital Deli Online, with no support whatsoever, citing Advertisement, but sending me to a 'soapbox' link, in all probability arising out of a series of personal attacks, insinuations, and unsupported demands of my personal tax status on Talk:Old-time radio. I'd imagine anyone seeing the insinuations he made, immediately followed by the snotty comment on the new prod he applied, might rightly connect the two incidients within 24 hours of each other. On the pretext of applying a new format for supporting footnotes he removed the heading without comment, then posted a new 'suitability/notability' prod, with a slur that the article sounds like an advertisement, yet sending me to the 'soapbox' citation. I gather that if a hostile editor or group of editors don't like a person's comments in support of their positions on discussion pages, they simply exercise their power to 'prod' any page they care to, as often as necessary to drive the person they object to out of Wikipedia. Given his experience, I'm certain this wasn't an error. He's sending a message, but it's an inappropriate one. Any guidance you can provide would be appreciated. He's clearly personally biased now, and while I understand such situations are sometimes unavoidable, since you steered me to the 'Discussion' pages for building and establishing consensus, you'll find from my history that I've both adhered to the guidelines, and provided both support, amplification and constructive advise in that forum already. There's no sense in coaching you further. I'll respect whatever conclusions you come away with after noting the timeliness of his application of the 'prod', and what may have compelled him to do so, based on his bias or prejudging. I'll respect whatever you come away with. Naturally any further suggestions to head off some of this continual sniping in the future would also be greatly appreciated. I feel like I'm in way over my head already. Dnyhagen 06:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake about the Pepso/Pepto username. I did check into Pepso's edits, I just mistyped the comment here. As such I still recommend engaging him in conversation as he appears to be an established editor, and open dialogue is the first step in the dispute resolution anyway.

Regarding the prod, it's a "soft" form of tagging an article for deletion, and states that according to the user's opinion the article should be deleted for the reason given. However the prod tag can be removed by anyone, so it is not binding in any way.

In looking at the history of the article, it looks like it was an IP that added the prod, and Wmahan actually removed it, indicating that he felt that it was applied in bad faith. He did then apply the {{advert}} template, but I believe this action was as proper as his removal of the prod tag. In its current form, the article does read somewhat like an advertisement. As I mentioned before about the {{notability}} tag, please don't take offense to it. Cleanup tags are part of normal Wikipedia article improvement, and Wikipedia culture encourages the use of the tags for that end.

If you're interested in working onthe article to address the advertisement concern, check out WP:NPOV, Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. It has information and tips that might help you re-word parts of the article to fall more in-line with what's expected of an encyclopedia entry here.

I hope this helps --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as usual it did help. Unfortunately, you didn't have time to notice that the very editor that applied the 'advertisement/soapbox' slur, is the same editor that so butchered the article as to edit it into an advertisement, then gratuitously apply the 'advertisement/soapbox' tag. Heck, I could do that to virtually every article on Wikipedia. And what's to prevent me from doing to, if Wmahan can apparently do this at will? If that's the way Wikipedia works, what's the point in even moving forward. 'Mercilessly editing' is one thing. Purposely editing an otherwise decent article into a blatant advertisement, then damning it for being an advertisement, is the most shameful, hypocrisy of all. And apparently there's no defense against it. Dnyhagen 13:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

External links removal

If you are going to go on a wholesale removal of certain links from various pages, perhaps because they are spam, please at least explain this in the edit summary.--Drat (Talk) 09:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I must confess, I have yet to get the hang of how the explanations are entered in the Edit Summary. Perhaps I'm simply not looking in the right Wikipedia help references. I assumed such 'higher editting functions' were reserved for 'super-editors' or users. But to satisfy your concerns, here's a summary of why they were all removed: a.) they were all posted by two anonymous sources, b). they referenced the exact same two sites (otrsite.com and freeotrshows.com) over 90 times each (both of which should be banned for spam link abuse], as did radiolovers.com (28 links), libsyn.com (23 links), and otrcat.com (18 links), c.) many of them simply opened a media player page without warning, and d.) they all promote a commercial endeavor (mostly 'OTR' .mp3 sales or membership to their sites}. Does that answer your concern? Dnyhagen 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RealMedia Question

Hi Dnyhagen. First things first--I've looked over your website and you are providing a great service! I'm not hostile to what you're trying to do. I haven't taken any sides on Talk:Old-time radio. I just got involved in the discussion saying there should be some external listen to links. They're great!

That said, I saw your post in that page regarding RealMedia files. I looked at the link you provided. I am very familiar with Steve Gibson and have lots of respect for him. I will concede that in the time period around 1998-2000 (approximately) RealNetworks did lots of things with their products that did not respect their users' privacy. Steve Gibson was talking about RealDownloader in 2000. Not mentioned on Mr. Gibson's website is RealJukebox (1999) that also "phoned home" (as did RealPlayer G2 back in 1998 (I think)). That's over five years ago and the bad reputation has stuck with some. Since then, as far as I'm aware, they've cleaned up their act, and has made a bunch of stuff open source to varying extents. If you have documentation of bad stuff they've done in recent years I really, truly am intersted in finding out about it. I will go on a hunt for recent information too and we can compare notes. (I used to hate RealNetworks too, but I don't think it is justified anymore.)

Regarding your point about it being essentially a dead-end file format (no easy way of future editting)--that is true. That does NOT mean it isn't useful in certain contexts. My website is intended to be a quick and easy way for people to listen to some of these old shows, and currently it uses RealMedia files. Now, I am working on a "non-beta" version of the website which uses plain 'ole MP3 format, but I am not switching from RM because of privacy concerns. Heck, if one is arguing over file formats--MP3 isn't perfect because it is encumbered by patents! Just like RM it also is best as listening-type of format, not an archival or editting one.

OldRadio 20:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the same thing Steve Gibson thought until the issue raised it's ugly head yet again with RealAudio10, RealVideo10 and RealProducer in it's latest incarnation. When a company as large as and far reaching as RealNetworks establishes a pattern of continued abuse over a span of 8 -10 years, it's 'RealApparent' that it's a corporate culture issue they'll never back off from. Microsoft under Steve Ballmer is just as bad, they just lie better to their audience--and they never ever admit culpability, not even to the Justice Department. They just keep finding more subtle internet strategies upon which to continue their intrusive tactics. You clearly understand the 'below the scroll' tactic RealNetworks has always employed in the setup screens of every RealPlayer they've ever distributed: that if one doesn't notice the scroll bar, results in commiting the user to being 'tracked' by RealNetworks from that point on. (The opt-out checkboxes are just below the scrolled content they display).

I do thank you for your supportive comments. It's just very frustrating attempting to overcome the huge inertia of 'OTR' spam across the internet when you're just one voice in the wilderness--and you steadfastly refuse to commercialize your site. But the few times that seasoned Golden Age Radio enthusiasts see what I'm trying to do, that simple acknowledgement that 'they get' what I'm trying to do, makes up for a lot of 'uphill battle' fatigue. Dnyhagen 22:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the more I browse your site, the more I like it. (It took me a bit to get used to the structure of your site). I'll soon read your Wikipedia article on your site to get a bit of the history of it. You are doing great work preserving all of these shows. I thank you for it! The work I do is much more modest. I just hope to make shows available in a quick and easy fashion to the public. I don't know if you've taken a peek at it, but it is located at [[3]]. I hope it violates your rule of thumb about sites using the phrase OTR or "Old Time Radio." It is completely non-commerical, no memberships, no ads, and no donations are even requested. Assuming someone has RealPlayer (ha!), it is simply a "click 'n' listen" type of operation. There is no radio history discussed my site--it is a very simple sort of site. (A more ambitious site is in the works). Is it OK for me to contact you via your "comments" email address, rather than continuing this via Wikipedia's talk pages? OldRadio 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, well you'll notice that I said '9 out of 10' sites with OTR in the name will inevitably be commerical. And yes, of course you--or anyone else--can click the 'comment' button on any page of the site. I have seen your site, and I find it both economical, well presented, and clearly appropriate. Naturally my own personal reservation would be the .ram files, but we agree to disagree on that subject. I like it. I hope others will continue to clean up their sites to make them as presentable. Dnyhagen 15:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, you did indeed use the "9 out of 10" phrase! :-) Regarding email--I was just checking to make sure the comment address is a good one to reach you with. Regarding RM--I don't like the RM files, either (for other reasons), so when I get rid of 'em later this year, I think we'll both agree that I'll be better off. The hangup for me has been coming up with a way of slowing down the level of downloading while still keeping the site very easy to use, and listening being as instant as possible. (The reason for slowing down downloading is to make sure the bandwidth I'm buying doesn't get overwhelmed). After I'm done with a bit more "slow-down-downloading" code, I'll be able to ditch RealMedia. An ideal situation listening sort of website requires no player downloads and no registration; I'm trying to get as close to that as possible. OldRadio 16:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've encountered the same problem delivering .mp3's from our 'Jukebox' page (essentially the same format you employ on your main page, just a bit more graphical), but I've found that utilizing .m3u's as opposed to directly downloading .mp3's seems more Internet Explorer friendly. I'm also leaning more in the direction of using Apple's QuickTime streaming to deliver the site's .mp3's since it will automatically stream them, giving the server time to 'cache' and deliver the media stream. However I've noticed that Media Player also caches and streams now as well. Our server is going on 5 yrs old now, and runs on a 2.4Ghz processor, but it seems to handle both the website traffic and FTP site equally well. I can deliver 2Gb of bandwidth with my hosting site, and even at peak bandwidth demands, our server rarely peaks beyond 60% processor utilization. Mind you, I've been balancing both disk use and access and processor demand for going on five years now, so it's been an evolutionary exercise. Dnyhagen 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary issue

In this edit here [4] you removed a blank line but stated that you were removing linkspam - please be careful with your edit summaries - thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted. I made the deletion at apparently the same time as another editor, and when I looked at the history I saw that I'd inadvertantly deleted a blank line. Please bear with me as I gain my sealegs here. Dnyhagen 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be picky - the difference in time between you and the other editor was 11 hours, that is what made me wonder --Nigel ^(Talk) 19:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, I was probably on a previous history page. I try to limit these mistakes to once--ONCE. heh. But thanks for the gentle hand-holding. Believe me, I need it, but I'm learning. I do tend to be a quick study though, if you'll simply bear with me a bit longer. Dnyhagen 19:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it's always available --Nigel ^(Talk) 19:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

More on edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Nigel ^(Talk) 12:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yes, wink wink, nudge nudge. :) You'd do well do advise your good freind, Wmahan to do the same. No? You're most welcome, and Happy editor editing to you.

-- Dnyhagen 14:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concerns; I replied at my talk page.

By the way, my edit summary usage is 100% for my past 150 major and 150 minor edits[5], so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. Wmahan. 14:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude is increasingly unhelpful. I noticed edits of yours removing spam and followed a number and removed some that you had started removing. However I also noticed that you do not use edit summaries on certain pages - I felt it worth pointing this out to you. If & when I find others exhibiting the same behaviour I will drop them the same note. Please be a little more circumspect or you will alienate people. Nigel ^(Talk) 14:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The instances in which you noted me backing off from a deletion were when I viewed the linked page before commiting to the deletion of the link, and concluded--incorrectly or not--that it didn't rise to actual link spam. I don't pretend to be omniscient, and tend to err in favor of content over perception. I hope that helps you understand my restraint. I sense you're referring to some of the otr.com edits I appear to have backed away from, since I know of the site's work, and indeed many of it's long-standing articles are well-respected throughout the Golden Age Radio community. And your point is well taken. Still gaining my sealegs here, all outward perceptions to the contrary. :) Dnyhagen 23:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Implying no more or less than you seem to be, but I must admit my discomfort with incivility, and I try hard to resist rising to the bait. What I'm referring to are the 40 some edits you made to the Digital Deli Online article without citing your rationale for each edit. I was lead to believe that such edits were meant to be constructive, or even helpful to a further understanding of the Wikipedia editing process. Granted I'm new to this entire process and I'll be the first to acknowledge a mistake. But I was lead to believe that edits were supposed to be supported. As to my own shortcomings in not posting edit summaries my first day of attempts, you'll note that once I was apprised of how to do that, I included an edit summary in all the subsequent edits. Given that the vast majority of them were repeated deletion of link spam from the same two or three repeat violators, and the fact that both you, Nigel, and other's came right behind them and reversed out their repeat attempts to spam, I'm at a loss to understand the implication that I've engaged in some sort of a witch hunt against OTR spammers. If you wish me to simply cease editing any but my own contributions, I certainly respect both you and Nigel's longstanding efforts to improve Wikipedia and I'm certainly entirely open to such a suggestion. I have no dog in other fights anyway. Since both of you, appeared to have viewed the utterly false, illiterate, unattributed, anonymous, slanderous, and libelous defamation on the Talk:Digital Deli Online discussion page, and find it doesn't violate virtually every single Wikipedia guideline I've been made aware of in the past 10 days--not to mention your welcoming remarks to yet another pseudonym for OTRCat.com, and 'his' posting of the defaming webpage it links to by Mark Farmer of spartaotr.com, it's hard not to conclude significant bias--if not to say hostility--toward the The Digital Deli Online article or its original contributor. In the past 10 days I've been accused of 1.) self-promotion, 2.) spamming Wikipedia, 3.) unterior motives in promoting Golden Age Radio preservation, 4.) commercialism, despite an extraordinary preponderence of support to the contrary to a degree not required by any other contributor or quideline, and 5.) going on some kind of rampage against the very link spam my first--and only--14 attempts to expand other clearly tangential Wikipedia articles with material from my site's own related pages were cited for. I was cited, made my case, ceased the practice, and moved on to rehabilitating the one article I'd contributed from scratch. I have not been a repeat 'violator' and in each and every case where my own editting shortcomings were pointed out, I attempted to learn from them. It's hard not to feel singled out, when unfounded personal attacks, motive questioning, and outrageous non-attributed slander come at you all at once from all quarters--and are apparently overlooked. Anyone viewing my responses--whether or not they agree with them--sees a clear attempt to support my points, cases, or positions with supportable arguments, as opposed to simple nay-saying, subject-changing, or deflection of virtually all of the points made. Irrespective of your apparent bias, and ongoing skepticism, I've attempted to both defend myself and my positions as respectfully as the issues or attacks that raised them. I believe very passionately in preservation of Golden Age Radio History and recordings. I looked, and have yet to find, another Wikipedia topic that specifically addresses the issue. The Old Time Radio article was continuing to devolve to a linkfarm--a notion I found offensive, given the sources of 95% of the link spam arising from it and it's linked pages. That's the beginning and end of it. I'd noticed a contribution of 14 - 17 page hits a week arising from Wikipedia links to The Digital Deli Online. That's what brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. The hits from Wikipedia's pages haven't changed appreciably during the past 10 days, nor would I expect them to. Google's crawls of The Digital Deli Online provide the vast majority of our vistors in the first place (example). Indeed, several of those same images grace the pages of Wikipedia today, though most are unattributed. Anyone who continues to overlook the obvious is more than welcome to. That's what I believed consensus to be about--both pro and con. Dnyhagen 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Replying to your long comment above: I was welcoming toward the new user because that's a Wikipedia policy and always a good approach to take. I saw the attack site, and I think it only reflects poorly on whoever created it, not on you.

I won't respond to each of your points individually, but you seem to think that I am out to harm your site's reputation, and that I have a vendetta against you. That's simply not true. Perhaps I gave you the wrong impression when I responded to what I saw as a personal attack on another editor. I did not mean to offend you, and if I did, allow me to apologize.

I ask you to assume good faith regarding my edits to the article. If you have a problem with a change I made, just let me know and I will try to address your concern. I'm asking for you to trust that I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia, and that while I'm trying to stay open-minded, it's inevitable that we will disagree on some things. You're obviously passionate about this subject, and I hope that our collective efforts can be spent toward improving articles, rather than defending against perceived personal attacks.

Please note that I didn't criticize your edit summary usage or any other minor mistake. It's to be expected that new users will take some time to learn the ropes, and it's no big deal.

I think we may be able to find some common ground on the removal of spam links to commercial sites, since I think that's something we both support. Again, I hope that we can put aside whatever bad impressions were made and work constructively. Wmahan. 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

All points taken and understood. We agree far more than I suspect you realize. From the very outset, I've attempted to deal in good faith. Immediately (or as soon as practical) attempting to rehabilitate my contributions to the satisfaction of other editor's concerns. And I take you at your word regarding the numerous edits. Since this was the fist time I'd seen virtually an entire page undergo such a dramatic tranformation, I hoped I might learn from it, but I had to resort to teasing it out of the history pages to see where you were going with most of your edits. AbsolutDan warned me early on to expect merciless editting, and I've tried to steel myself for just such a prospect. I had hoped the message of preservation of Golden Age Radio History, recordings, and ephemera had a place on Wikipedia, and I still feel it does. Perhaps it's for others to make a better case. I'd certainly be equally pleased in either case. I feel I'm up to the task of rehabilitating the page further. And I'll expect you, Nigel, AbsolutDan and others familiar with it, to see a marked improvement in the article as I work on it further. And yes, mea culpa for my passion. As you can see from the outrageous forces I'm up against at times, it's been an uphill battle, but I am passionate about it, and would that I was a multimillionaire in a position to fund the effort without any need whatsoever of user support. Such is not yet the case. If I ever do hit one of the MegaLoterries you can be sure the first page to disappear from The Digital Deli Online will be it's single user support page. But believe me when I say, I 'get' what you and the other 'honest' editors of the article are attempting to achieve. I truly do. Don't mistake my passion, for hostility. Please. Dnyhagen 00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth here, the edits to the article from Wmahan that I've seen have done 3 things: 1) turn plain external links into proper citations, 2)the removal of some text most in disagreement with WP:NPOV policy, and 3) other basic cleanup. In my opinion, he's only made the article more encyclopedic. Forgive me if this is a moot point now, I'm having a hard time keeping up with the far-flung nature of this and other related discussions while maintaining a day job and some semblance of a life! :) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the recently converted now. Yes, I agree. And the 'merciless editing' pales in comparison to the outrageous vandalism apparently condoned in some cases. I'm coming along, slowly but surely. Perhaps more stubbornly at times, but I'm always open to support of positions. If another editor shows me the perceived value of what were apparently quite constructive edits in the end, then they can only add value to the article. Having been descended upon en masse recently it's been difficult at times to step back and see the bigger picture, but I'm getting there. I may even be able to harden myself to the baiting and outrageous slurs and attacks in time. It's been an interesting and educational process in any case. It'll be interesting to see how long the garbage on the discussion page is allowed to remain, but I suppose that'll just be yet another educational excursion into the inner workings of Wikipedia. All told, it's still been worth it. We'll see what the next weeks bring. I thank you for your continued constructive criticism, even when it stings at times. You deliver it well, and you back it up with continued constructive support. Dnyhagen 03:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox on my talk page

Thanks for the reminder - knew there was something I meant to do this morning. I had already told the user of my feelings on his talk page. --Nigel ^(Talk) 08:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

Please be very sure that you do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The links guideline is quite clear: you should not add links to your own site. If you are called on it, you should not retaliate by deleting other links. This edit [6] leaving a geocities site makes it clear that you are pursuing an agenda. Please don't. Guy 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't even bear comment, but I can't let it stand. THREE editors suggested the correct way and showed me the wrong ways to submit links to an article through consensus. I did precisely that. Indeed I was criticized by one of the other editors for NOT removing a link spam link he noticed me back off from via the page in question's history tab. Read some history before you contribute to further disruption here. Dnyhagen 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And now having noted you prod the article for deletion because of my 'restraint' in removing link spam thoughtfully and carefully in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines? How many ways do you editors want it? Every way? I'm criticized for removing links others direct me to, by THEIR guidance, then I'm sanctioned for NOT removing links editors thought I should have? And now yet another editor cites me for removing one link spam versus another? Which is it, guys? First I'm accused of a wholesale link removal expedition, then I'm accused for NOT removing links, then I'm accused of not removing the wrong links? FYI, Geocities and Yahoo sponsored subscribers have no defense against the Geocities and Yahoo link spam they impose on their subscribers' websites. That's the point I felt compelled to take into consideration in not removing that link. My judgement was that the user had no control over his host site's link spam. As a matter of fact, I've had to weigh that very decision when considering the addition of suggested links from my own site, of which there are over 500 now, so this is not a new dilemma for me by any means. Is that what Wikipedia is about? Penalizing the little guy that can't afford to host his or her own web presence in favor of the more well-heeled, that can? Dnyhagen 22:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that today you did the same again: removed links to a particular site where you have an ongoing dispute with someone associated with the site, while leaving personal pages of much lower apparent merit. You appear to be pursuing a vendetta, and if you do the same again I will block you to prveent further abuses. Please do not bring your battles to Wikipedia. If you are going to review a long list of links, it is better for transparency if you post on Talk a review of the entire list, with a comment on each link, rather than apparently targeting a single domain. Removal of spam links without favouritism is fine, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is not. I trust this is clear now? Guy 10:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the one violating the guidelines here, not me, through insinuations, aspersions and utterly unfounded accusations. I have no personal issue with any of the sites I've either suggested obtaining consensus to, nor with the link spam deletions I've made. You clearly didn't bother to respond to my answer to your previous allegation, nor took the time to verify my rationale for not removing a link. I have been advised time and time again by User:AbsolutDan, User:Wmahan, and User:NigelR to recommend to those placing external links, to first propose them on the article's Discussion Page. And if you're going to make a naked accusationi of bias here, you'd better be prepared to back it up with facts. If you take issue with that Guideline, I suggest you lobby for a policy change with Wikipedia, instead of a bad faith insinuation against another editor. Try acting in good faith, and in keeping with Wikipedia guidlines on obtaining consensus before placing links. Please. And as to your last insinuation, I would caution you again, against your continuing unsupported accusations and bad faith assumptions. Look at the history pages or consult the above three editors as to the reasons wny I've been advised to suggest link submission be addressed on a discussion page for consensus. Dnyhagen 10:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can find nowhere that I have advised you on the placing of external links - please point me to where I said this, thank you --Nigel ^(Talk) 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To save you scrolling up, since I hope this page will be refactored soon, here's the dialogue:

Your attitude is increasingly unhelpful. I noticed edits of yours removing spam and followed a number and removed some that you had started removing. However I also noticed that you do not use edit summaries on certain pages - I felt it worth pointing this out to you. If & when I find others exhibiting the same behaviour I will drop them the same note. Please be a little more circumspect or you will alienate people. Nigel ^(Talk) 14:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The instances in which you noted me backing off from a deletion were when I viewed the linked page before commiting to the deletion of the link, and concluded--incorrectly or not--that it didn't rise to actual link spam. I don't pretend to be omniscient, and tend to err in favor of content over perception. I hope that helps you understand my restraint. I sense you're referring to some of the otr.com edits I appear to have backed away from, since I know of the site's work, and indeed many of it's long-standing articles are well-respected throughout the Golden Age Radio community. And your point is well taken. Still gaining my sealegs here, all outward perceptions to the contrary. :) Dnyhagen 23:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dnyhagen, you need to read for comprehension. The problem here is that you appear to be removing only links to sites where you have an ongoing dispute, while leaving behind other sites which should, per WP:EL, almost certainly be purged. This l;eads to an appearance of bias which you can reduce by discussing on Talk the reasons for your selection of some links and not others for removal. Guy 11:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you need to temper your repeated, continual, bad faith allegations. If you can show me specific examples I'll be happy to address each and every one of them, as I did the one NigelR cited above, and that you, yourself questioned above that. I provided you my rationale, supported it, for better or worse and you apparently didn't either read or comprehend any of it. I will say yet again, and frankly for the very last time, lest this become disruptive. I cited, and removed--or avoided removing--spam linking sites based upon 1.) obvious commercialism 2.) banner ads on a proprietary site, 3.) simple self-promotion, 4.) or failure to follow a previous suggestion to adhere to the Guideline regarding first obtaining consensus on a discussion page, prior to posting a link. I will repeat yet again--and for the very last time--my restraint in removing the link you specifically took issue with above. The site, 'Vic and Sade Tribute' I believe it was, is one of only three valuable Vic and Sade Golden Age Radio sites I've yet to find on the internet myself. If I remember correctly, they possess one of the largest compilations of Vic and Sade scripts and episodes on the internet, and are cited repeatedly by other Vic and Sade proponents in the Golden Age Radio community. To the best of my knowledge and belief they offer nothing commercial on their pages. I have neither any affiliation with it, nor any axe to grind with it. I will say again, the banner ads on their page were from GeoCities, not from the individual authors. Which part of this justification are you failing to comprehend? Is there a proscription somewhere on Wikipedia against posting, linking to, or citing any and every site Yahoo or GeoCities hosts by rote? Is that either fair, reasonable or prudent? I made a judgement call, as I would hope all editors on Wikipedia do each time they consider a link spam deletion. I noted they were at the mercy of their host, and concluded--rightly or wrongly--that they were helpless to prevent the GeoCities banner ads on their page, which otherwise appeared to be a valuable extension of the Vic And Sade article. That's it, plain and simple. What part of this are you failing to read for comprehension, Guy? Asked and Answered. Those were my rationale. Period. No axe, no dog in the hunt, no affiliation, no nothing. A simple judgment call, as with all the others. Period. And did you say I left behind SITES that should be purged? Where was that and when?? God knows I'm getting enough mixed guidance on simple link deletions alone. I'm not EVEN prepared to purge whole sites yet. What are you referring to?? Please advise, as I'd like to dispense with this and move onto something productive. Thanks. Dnyhagen 11:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I had reviewed this page and others before posting - nothing in the piece of mine you have copied refers to external lins - it refers to your use or lack of use in edit summaries and nothing to do with how links should be discussed - again your approach is to say the least unfortunate and rather uncivil. Thank you --Nigel ^(Talk) 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me yet again, and with all due respect . . . the edit summaries you referred to, were for external links deletions you'd advised me about previously in a thread with Wmahan. How is that not related to external links? That's parsing it rather narrowly don't you think? Please show me the incivility in the response. Calling it a night. it's almost 5am here. Cheers. Dnyhagen 11:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

However what you stated above was I had advised you "to recommend to those placing external links, to first propose them on the article's Discussion Page". I have not done so --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was me that made both the suggestion to remove spam and also that using the talk page to discuss the link first is the appropriate course of action. First, this was way before this debate has snowballed into what it is today; actions that are normally uncontroversial or even encouraged (like linkspam removal) can become a sore spot when there are voices debating on both sides of the issue. As such, Dnyhagen, let me supplement my original recommendation to add that, going forward, linkspam removal should be done only when such a task would be deemed relatively uncontroversial, and certainly not in the midst of an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of the links, when there is no clear consensus about the appropriateness of the links.

Having said this, perhaps we can chalk up Dnygagen's controversial removals to an ambiguity in our (mostly my) recommendations to him, and cut him a bit of slack on this particular matter? Going forward, until this debate is resolved, I suggest at least a short discussion prior to any addition or removal of at least the particular links that are at issue in this debate. Most preferrably, the link additions or removals ought to be done by someone not tied to any of the websites in question. Are we all ok with this proposal? This is not intended to indicate any change in policy or guideline, just something I hope we can agree on for this particular matter. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, and certainly appropriate at this juncture. It'll be a heyday for the return of the link spammers but I trust ya'll will monitor the situation just as carefully as you did before the last spate of link spammming gambits littering hundreds of the Old Time Radio related articles. I'll pass on this next round, with all due respect. And lest it not be said now, my helpful triumverate of supporting editors--and I say that both sincerely and without any cynicism--helped me immeasurably to understand the depth of the problems in this particular niche of Wikipedia. Your admirable restraint at times--you, NigelR and Wmahan--defies comparison in my experience online, and I thank all three of you for it. I mean that. My particular little niche of Golden Age Radio preservation proponents will plod along, with or without the more detrimental effects of link spam food fights. It has for 5 years now, and it will almost certainly continue to do just fine, thank you very much. You gotta admire that one gambit though--embedding an Amazon account in the middle of an Amazon.com IBSN link of an author's work. Dang that was brilliant. You have to wonder how much he made from Amazon.com with all those unwitting clicks to John Dunning's books for 5 months. Just brilliantly evil. You have to give them that, anyway. Who'd ever think of something like that. Well enough of this. I reiterate my gratitude all your support through all of this silliness. The three of you put an honorable face to what had been a faceless, thankless effort before I was made aware of what you all put up with on a daily basis. Keep fighting the good fight. People notice. They do. Cheers. Dnyhagen 13:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I see how I and others might have given Dnyhagen some mixed messages regarding removal of links, so I ask that he be cut some slack on this issue. Guy is a respected editor who is clearly acting in good faith, and you (Dnyhagen) should heed his warning not to remove links in a way that might possibly be perceived as pursuing an agenda. If you notice spam, tell a neutral editor and it will be taken care of. I suspect allowing a neutral party to remove the links might relieve some of the animosity that owners of other sites have expressed toward you. Wmahan. 14:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well the kind words were well deserved, Wmahan. It's a shame though, that those hundreds of links I brought to the forefront were simply overlooked for what appears to be as much as five months in most cases. I recognize now, that many of you might have waded in earlier on some of the above insinuations, but for fear of raising Guy's ire, given his seniority. That 'Guy' would continue to harp on that old saw, gains no respect from me whatsoever. To use Guy's parlance, how long he's been on Wikipedia impresses me not one whit. Absolutely none. He clearly doesn't know me, he can only continue to infer or ascribe my motives through continued sniping, aspersions, ignorance of common dialogue, and utter ignorance of the subject matter by which he presumes to criticize my own rather extensive experience in these topic areas. One might be forgiven for failing to understand the utter illogic of questioning the motives of someone rather more experienced in the subject matter as they apply that knowledge to qualitative decisions on whether a link is, or is not spam. Yet, admittedly ignorant of Golden Age Radio, he simply--and arbitrarily--presumes to inform me of my judgement in responses to Golden Age Radio spam links. He has yet to answer my response to his first hissy fit. Nor has anyone else here, chimed in. Perhaps someone will have the nerve to chime in on the issue of arbitrary deletion of, or prejudice ascribed to, any and all GeoCities and Yahoo hosted websites. That he doesn't trouble himself with such trivial details, gains no respect from me. He was 'brought in' to accomplish one thing and one thing only. And apparently he has enough seniority to intimidate more junior editors who out of simple conscience may have otherwise waded in on some of his insinuations. Heck, you guys have to work with the guy, and I appreciate the politics of the dilemma. I'm left to only surmise this, in the continued absence of his response to his challenge of my rationale for not deleting a link for the reasons I cited, supported, and detailed. Nor does he cite the other edits he simply attacks me for making without specifics. That's not 'wisdom' or seniority, that's tyranny. I simply don't suffer tyranny gladly. Ya'll may have to put it with it. Thankfully, I don't.

Without belaboring the point, it was simple naivete to believe I might lend some of my experience to the editing in the Golden Age Radio articles of Wikipedia, by virtue of having operated a website which specifically addresses many of the controversies and issues within the subject matter of which Guy is so proud to state he's completely igrnorant of. Any careful reading amongst all of the attack garbage in Old Time Radio's discussion page, in particular, will note my contributions to issues such as copyright, proposed historical Golden Age Radio websites, media links, and media selection, encoding, and delivery. Even more careful reading will note that I invariably cite my sources, back up my positions with verifiable facts, and suggest other possible sources from which to draw upon. And yes, perhaps a bit too passionately for Wikipedia's sensibilities. I regret that. That any and all of this was lost due to the din of backbiting, sniping, character assassination and outright intellectual fraud, I'll accept perhaps some blame for as the 'lightning rod du jour' at the time. But it has to be apparent that there's a lot of misinformation, urban myth, and simple ignorance amongst the various factions within the Golden Age Radio community. Much of it, sadly, deliberately self-serving. That's even more regrettable.

Perhaps one of my social failings has been a consistent willingness to speak truth to power. Perhaps Wikipedia is a bit too fragile an environment at present to endure speaking truth to power. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it be intellectual bullying, political, or organizational. But I do thank the three of you for showing me the error of my initial naievete about Wikipedia edits, and almost always, gently correcting them in time. You simply can't win with some people or situations, despite whatever noble motives you may--or may not--aspire to. A ruthless, self-serving hierarchy inevitably creates it's own inertia, and there's ample evidence of that in Wikipedia already. That's regrettable, but there are others who will fight the good fight for a principle. Therein lies the only hope for constructive change. If all the controversy directed at me personally, and even more shamefully at my absolutely, positively, unquestionably not for profit site--or it's motives--has raised awareness of the self-serving, long-standing spam link abuse I raised in Wikipedia Golden Age Radio articles--and how to approach or deal with them now--then it wasn't a complete waste of effort. Indeed, one of the longest abusers has been dealt with now, and the others will reveal themselves for what they are in time, if they haven't already.

I don't aspire to some icon of nobility. I have my own failings and shortcomings, to be sure. But I've kept my Golden Age Radio site pure in that regard, in the face of an onslaught of imitators, me too's, and other's far more willing to financially capitalize on a resurgence of interest in Golden Age Radio and it's legacy, to it's detriment. Since no one's bothered to note the stark absence of page after page of link spam on my site's 1,200 pages, I won't belabor that point any longer. But I'd point out, that by sheer number of pages alone, resisting the temptation to attach banner ads and link backs on all of them, has indeed been difficult to resist. And it'll continue that way as long as I own the site. I'd take it down, before succumbing to that temptation. It's not nobility, or simple poor business sense. It's simply a reflection of respect for Golden Age Radio preservation--nothing more and certainly nothing less. It would be the height of hypocrisy to maintain a Golden Age Radio preservation site that attempts to take the high road in such issues, while at the same time posting 10 to 12 banner ads for completely unrelated garbage on every page. That would do a disservice to the preservation message, and I won't tolerate that on my own site. That's yet another fact that was lost or ignored in the above referenced din.

I'll step back from raising these all too obvious issues for a while, but I'll be checking back often to see how you're all handling it. At the least you, Wmahan, are wise by now to some of the more outrageous gambits, and your continuing editting of such abuses can only help improve the articles they attach themselves to. Kudos to you personally for spotting those Amazon.com account abuse links. Those are the most nefarious of all, given their naked fraudulent motives. It took an experienced editor to spot it, and I take my hat off to you for catching them. And just for both you and AbsolutDan. The Jerry Haendiges site is one of the oldest, and has been one of the most helpful log information sites on the internet from almost the inception of such pages. If anyone doubts my respect for him, they need but see my acknowledgement of his contributions on my 'About The Site' page. I may be naieve, but I can't beleive that if he knew his site was being link spammed on Wikipedia that he'd tolerate it himself. But here's a little tip for both of you: Jerry posts links to ALL of his logs on one page of his site, and thus need but be cited once--if ever--from perhaps the Old Time Radio article, but certainly not from the over 200 related individual Program articles. I'm convinced that if he knew his site was being used the way it had been, that he'd be outraged. I think I'm safe in saying that anyone that knows his reputation, would conclude the same. Jerry's site doesn't need spam links. It does amazingly well on it's own--as quite frankly and honestly, does my own.

And much to your relief, I promise this will be the last, long treatise you see from me.  :-) If that doesn't make your day, I don't know what would. heh. Cheers, and thanks. Ya'll can refactor this page with my blessing anytime now.

RE: link spam

Thank you for bringing that particular link to my attention. I will investigate it further myself this evening and take whatever action I feel is appropriate.

I see that you've posted to the WikiProject Spam talk page. While I'm happy to look through any possible link spam myself, if you post these types of questions regarding the appropriateness of links there, you'll get a bunch of eyes on it, not just mine. I'm a regular participant there anyway, so anything posted there will eventually be seen by me anyway.

Speaking of WPSpam, I see that you've replied to my original post there about the OTR links issue. In re-reading through what I wrote, I suppose I was a bit snide in that post. I hope you'll note that it was posted well before we'd begun to come to some sort of understanding, and at that time it still appeared to me that you were here only to promote your website. As the WPSpam talk page is very informal and is used to coordinate the efforts of members of the project, we tend to be also less formal and guarded in the way we discuss matters there. I suppose I could have assumed a bit more WP:AGF at the time, and for the lack of that I do apologize. I hope you will consider utilizing the project for future spam questions. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about the external links you've pointed out to me. I think I agree with you about the MP3's - per WP:EL, we should avoid linking directly to rich media. I've been a bit on the busy side lately, only being able to keep up with my watchlist and its threads, but I should have some time this weekend at least to look at those and the other links more in depth. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a few minutes to spare so I looked over the flicklives link. I agree, it's unnecessary as the main page seems to be composed heavily of links to pages to purchase things. I've removed it, and the article is now on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it for a while, at least. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

<g>

Edit summaries - if I've got to do them ...

alright ignore me - got a chance of getting an edit in here without "edit conflict"! Food and a glass of wine suggest time out till the morning (for me) would be sensible. You do make some good points - I'd prefer to think about them than react. Back to you in the am for me (& this will be on the other page if you aren't editing it). Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No slight intended. I didn't notice it. Sorry. And yes, 'Life' calls me as well, at present. To be continued . . . Dnyhagen 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff

The real world impinges, probably today and tomorrow, and so I'm not likely to get much time on Wiki. However there were a couple of points I would like to share with you.

I have a cousin I do get on very well with, however he nevers uses one word when he can use 10. It can be tiring - you do tend to shoot from the hip when editing. It is sometimes hard to keep up with threads when you go back and make small additional edits (showing up on watchlists) when they are actually changes in emphasis or similar. Would it be worth writing "offline" and re-reading rather than doing that?

My leaning and my background all point me towards aiming for consensus and moving on - Wiki too is really about consensus - in the end the majority will rule even if a lone voice can always affect and inform that majority. You do seem to have brought some history with you to Wiki in the shape of people who do not see the world the way you do. You are also someone who does not give in - nothing wrong with that but you must be prepared to work towards concensus or life (yours & mine) will be difficult!

I'm not trying to get you to change but to reflect on the impact you may have on others. Nothing here is a criticism of you so please don't take it like that - it is a comment about how you operate on Wiki. I think there is definitely a place here for you - Wiki should not be filled just with consenting voices, but the dissenters do have to want to be part of it and not too abrasively. I really hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is offered. All the best --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but the other thing you need to consider is how people like Guy tend to either oversimplify an important point--for their own ends--or opportunistically parse one's response so suit their position. That's the primary reason I tend to be overly precise, even to the point of reediting my responses, after I recognize yet another potential chink in my arguments that may, indeed be parsed to my argument's detriment. Cheers. Dnyhagen 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairly quickly and not written offline, so as it comes! "oversimplify", "abrupt", "long winded", "overstated" - all POV. I think you are probably being a little harsh towards Guy. I know no more than you do but he does it his way apparently - which is not the same as yours - "right", "wrong"?? You & he got on the wrong side of one another - I could argue you tried to do the same with me at times but then you could reverse the argument & I'd have to say - from your perspective - you are correct.

Not getting into a discussion here and now (not the time/not the place) but you are in a real minority in your views on dmoz. The "spam mob" and many others see it as a "preferred" solution. I'm sure I will hear from you but maybe think and reflect first. (I can only say I hope your day has been better than mine F***ing computers!) Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's face it, Nigel. When the inmates run the dmoz asylum in the 'OTR' realm of the dmoz, what would you expect. Of course it's self-serving--BY DESIGN. Frankly, as Guy says, I couldn't give one whit about the corruption in the dmoz. As you can already tell, despite their best efforts to deny genuine history sites a place in their world, they STILL show me, the self-avowed antithesis of 'OTR', as the 4th Most Popular Old Time Radio spot in their rankings. A conundrum to be sure, and a mantle I want no part of, in all honesty. But I didn't ask to be listed in Old Time Radio on Alexa/dmoz/Netscape/AOL (all one in the same highly commercially motivated endeavors now), but they won't stop listing me. Help me out here? What precisely is one to do?? Dnyhagen 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page message

It really would be a pity if you withdrew. Everything I have written to you and about you in the past little while I have meant. The thoughtful peices I am more pleased with than the others. I've yet to review the overnight (for me) traffic on OTR but - all in all - I would prefer to have a variety of wolves circling around me! Maybe not a compliment bur certainly not an insult. Time out maybe but you know as well as I do systems cannot be influenced well from outside. I hope I'll hear more from you (did I say that <g>). My treat for today - getting to grips some more with OTR links - us Wiki editors know how to live! --Nigel ^(Talk)

It ain't tortured however you spell it! And talk to us --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. 'Torturned' or 'tortured', it's simply devolved into a 'pearls before swine' issue over there, as should be obvious to any objective editor, except of course to the 'inmates'. I note with amused vindication that not only has only one of my initial series of 200+ 'shocking', 'outrageous', 'self-serving', 'unmerited', or 'spiteful' link spam deletions been reversed (and only by the most specious and--to this day--unsupported logic by the reversing editor), and that most of the more serious links I've suggested for the Old Time Radio article seem to be limping back into play, albeit without any reference whatsoever to the fact that I originally posted most of them. The University of Maryland proposal (and apparently now, by inference, any Library of Congress links) will apparently never see the light of day now, due to the apparent self-imposed myopia (or self-interests?) of one of the 'admins'. I'm sorry, and it pains me to reiterate it, but both the inmates--and the inmate admins--are still clearly complicit at the Old Time Radio asylum. It's as self-evident to you as it is to me by now. I'll be watching the discussion pages closely to see the sheepish, 'tortured'  :-) logic by which most of my originally suggested links--struck arbitrarily by Guy--will inevitably wend their way back into the article once again. Dnyhagen 17:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your continued proposal of the dmoz. I respectfully suggest you acquaint yourself with the nakedly commercial interests behind the dmoz, since its acquisition by AOL/Time Warner. The self-serving motivations of Alexa/Amazon.com and AOL/Netscape/dmoz are as commercial as 'commercial' gets. How anyone knowledgeable of the facts fails to see that is beyond my ken. Dnyhagen 17:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As to this 'WikiOTR' person (and we can both surmise who he is by now), for reasons apparently known only by the 'admin', he seems allowed to continue to make the same, tired old argument and attach it to every constructive comment I make now. Even if the Old Time Radio article proponents weren't so obviously co-opted, the continued, unabated sniping of WikiOTR continues to draw more attention to the sniping than to the value of any further comments or observations I might post there. And since apparently all the 'inmates' over there do is read the sniping, rather than intelligent dialogue, any further contributions I might make there would be non-starters. There's clearly one set of rules for certain editors and another set for others. Dnyhagen 17:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And there was me thinking you had got off the soapbox with us at least for a bit! Keep contributing & preferably not anonomously. You have value to offer. And if you want to help who is wikiotr - believe me if it can be proved to be fishy I'll join you rather than let it happen? And pretty please if I can write with **** grammar so can you. I guess I should say don't attack people even admins even by implication - it will not help WP:CIVIL? Slow down, take care --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Soapbox, Schmoapbox. Like anyone gives a ****. There. Is that better?  :) Dnyhagen 01:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would I continue "torturing" myself by placing stuff on your talk page if no one gives a ****! Better/worse? --Nigel ^(Talk) 09:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, point taken my worthy adversary(?) . . . and thanks. . . . again. Dnyhagen 15:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit with the flattery already! And no answer to my actual question above - I'll open up my email if you want me to? --Nigel ^(Talk)

I'm also sorry to hear that you're considering giving up. Wikipedia can be frustrating at times, I know. There are many debates that I've had to withdraw from because they've devolved into madness. One is ongoing right now at Talk:Logo. A couple editors who are apparently friends are canvassing for votes for a link that is clearly inappropriate for the article. Even if you're right, you can't win them all, unfortunately. I believe, however, that time makes all things right here. Eventually someone's going to come by and do some serious cleanup work on Logo, find some excellent sources, and make the inappropriate link stand out like a sore thumb, and thus it will disappear.

Perhaps something along those lines will happen here. Sometimes you just need to wait for the right set of eyes to come by and make an article right with the world in one fell swoop. I've seen it happen before! If you set aside this debate for a while, maybe you'll see some improvement when you return. In the meantime, we can always use help at the many other projects and open tasks here. Many of those, such as Category:Articles that need to be wikified are extremely straightforward and there is little or no controversy surrounding the task. Sometimes it's nice to just work on something that you know no one will complain about! Oftentimes when I find myself bogged down with a heated debate, I'll spend some time on these projects. Check out Wikipedia:Community Portal for the current open task list (below the community bulletin board). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In point of fact I've been slowly improving the Mutual Broadcasting System article--anonymously, naturally, for obvious reasons, and I'll shortly be doing the same with NBC, ABC, CBS, and AFRTS. There are many valuable Golden Age Radio History articles to contribute to, so I assure you my time here will not be wasted--as long as I avoid revealing my identity. There just comes a time when it's patently obvious that genuinely constructive dialogue is simply not possible regarding an article that it's proponents appear to have erected for none other than purely commercially, self-promoting reasons (an argument supported by a. -- the 200+ link spams I removed the 2nd day I was involved in it, and b. -- the fact that they'd been added to Wikipedia for over 5 mos. without objection by Old Time Radio's 'honest', 'dispassionate', 'non-commercially motivated' editors and admins), as opposed to a the longer view of creating a genuinely well cited, well supported, historically accurate encyclopedia entry. Dnyhagen 17:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Three theory conspiracy

Ok - the approved page telling you what to do is WP:ARCHIVE, as I recall three theories. By and large that confused me so I do what I always do - find a page that does it right - edit it, copy what I need and cancel the edit and give it a go. If that doesn't appeal I'll set it up for you but basically create a new sub talk page and cut and paste. Feel free to get back to me on that if you want to. Ok & I just realised the header should have said "archive" not "conspiracy" - wonder how many people dived in to read it (well it's been a wet day here). --Nigel ^(Talk) 16:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

but if you want to whinge about links find someone who is still interested --80.189.3.25 11:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another sniveling, creepy coward. So what's new? Dnyhagen 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)