User talk:Veinor/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Industrial Robot

Forgive me if I am writing to you in the wrong way. I don't know how to work this one. If I'm right you are the one that removed the 'external links to robot manufacturers' from the industrial robot page. My problem is this: a number of companies were listed there which do not warrant their own pages but I felt should be listed. May I ask why you removed them? Robotics1 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and the external links seem to serve as basically advertising for those companies. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand that but the list was relevant. I don't understand Wikipedia all that well as I only contribute to robotics pages. I haven't seen you name in industrial robot. Is your function to go through all parts of Wikipedia removing commercial links? I don't see how you can avoid some links to commercial sites. Wikipedia is riddled with them as far as I can see. I think the important thing is that they should be relevant.

Above the list was a list of robot manufacturers many of whom have their own pages. Some are not so big or so influential on the robot scene that they warrant their own pages. But below that section is a section called 'other links'. Now these links are distinctly commercial and I feel well and truly fail your criteria and mine too. in fact the link to Tim King seems to have no relevance at all to industrial robot. I don't know how long it has been there.

I don't want to tread on anyone's feet so I would like to clean those lists up. I have been in robotics for 40 years and written many articles and papers so I feel I can make a decent and fair contribution. I propose to enhance the list of manufacturers and edit or possibly remove the 'other links'. I also will be making some links to robot software and other subjects elsewhere in Wikipedia. I meant to do these a year ago but have been so busy I only just got round to it. I ask you to trust me that what I do is fair and accurate. Robotics1 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my 'function', if you want to put it that way, is to remove all the spam on Wikipedia. I don't have a problem with commercial links per se, but I do when they're not to pages that actually provide information about the subject of the article. I don't see any link to anything about Tim King there. The main issue that I have with links is when they just serve to promote a company and don't add any information; for exmaple, those commercial links didn't have any information about industrial robots, just specific companies. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The reason you didn't see the link to Tim King is that I removed it and the other link that was way beyond your criteria. As for robot manufacturers I see external links to commercial sites all over Wikipedia so you have your work cut out. But where robot manufacturers are concerned I agree with the person who originally inserted the list because robot manufacturers websites frequently include a wealth of information which you could not put in the article itself, for example the design of the controllers, how their software works and so on. This list was a great deal more useful than other commercial links that still exist on Wikipedia. Why did you pick on ours? (that is not meant to be an aggressive question, sorry, I am just curious why you picked this list of links, and not the overtly commercial links on the same page and not commercial links elsewhere on Wikipedia?) Robotics1 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I picked this list because I happened to see a link added to it through a linkwatching program, and I saw the page, saw all the links, and decided to clean it up. It's nothing personal or anything. And I don't think that information about how a specific company does something is useful for a page on robots in general, since that might not be a widely-done method of doing that thing. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. They might not. It's in the nature of Wikipedia articles that they are short and to the point, compared to a real (paper) encyclopedia and it can help to link to other sites. For example the paragraph on robot types is thin and lacks any diagrams which can be found on commerical sites. I'll see if I can put that right but I'm not sure how large Wiki articles are allowed to be. Robotics1 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast limit, but it tends to depend on the subject of the article. If necessary, a new article could be started and linked to from the main. It would all depend on how much can be written about the robot types. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to do some work on Robot_software. I am worried about the external links there but I don't feel confident to judge and edit them myself. Please could you take a look. Robotics1 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I would do. I'd remove the entire 'Robotics Software Projects' section as being a collection of external links, which Wikipedia is not. Same for the Linux kernel drivers section. As for the other links, the general rule is that only links that provide more information about the subject (in this case, robot software) are OK; links to specific robotic software groups generally aren't. And I don't think that anybody will block you or get you in trouble or anything. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, That is what I will do. But it gets worse, sorry. I am writing the article offline at present but wanted to put in links where they applied. Industrial Robot Software necessarily should include a description of VAL and sure enough there's an article already there. I then wanted to say that a modern version of VAL is being used by Adept Technology and sure enough there's an article on them too. But there's a bloody great logo there. Is that commercial or what? Is that permitted? Your advice please. I don't have any contribution to make to that page or the page on VAL (which is poor both in content and English). Robotics1 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Veinor, I don't know if you read the above yet. On looking at the Adept Technology page I see it is full of external links to various products on Adept's website. Is this allowed? If I go through and delete them what will happen? Robotics1 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC) UPDATE - on reading this page right through I must conclude that the entire article is just an advert. Judge for yourself from the language used (all superlatives not just factual content) and no end of external links. I am tempted to delete the whole page. Robotics1 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC) wow you were quick! Thanks. Robotics1 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete articles (blanking the page is not the same thing), but I definitely agree with you here. I speedy deleted the page as being blatant advertising. Oh, and in response to your question above: I'm not sure about including something about VAL; is it one of the major languages, and can you back that up with reliable sources? Even if it is, I'd probably suggest including a couple sentences with a link to the VAL page. By the way, you don't need the underscores in links; instead of [[Variable_Assembly_Language]], [[Variable Assembly Language]] works just fine. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think VAL is safe. It's already in at VAL. It was the language used on the very first industrial robots (Puma) though I will check facts first. I think the criterion should be is it a language used by a number of companies or just a proprietary product. For example C was written as a commercial venture but now so many people use it, it has to be included in wp. Robotics1 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been checking the other robot manufacturer pages. They seem fair - just a factual overview, but KUKA seems borderline. It contains the external links to Kuka website and also an external link in references. Kuka is just about the largest robot manufacturer. May I have your opinion? I think I can edit it ok. Robotics1 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Littlefield edits

Would you review a page you made edits to a few weeks ago? I'd like feedback on Ron_Littlefield before I post info to the article's talk page as requested by Qmax on my talk page. My understanding of 3RR was that unsourced, unreliable info could be immediately removed without discussion, so I feel a bit hesitant about making edits without clarity that the two external websites on this page do not meet the wp:el guidelines. The link to "worst mayor ever" has been removed twice, but has been added back in and the description changed to “a collection of essays” by an editor who is part owner of the company that hosts this blog and who has referenced the blog several times on his own personal blog. The external book link makes no connection to the article’s subject and violates [WP:EL] policies as a self-published book WP:SPS. The book’s publisher is a non-profit registered by the author and there are no independent academic reviews, only references listed on the editor’s company blogs and on wikipedia articles. I do live in Chattanooga and am a writer, but I have no bias or conflict of interest per WP:COIother than finding the blog funny at times and re-worded descriptions red flags. Thanks. Flowanda 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely against having the 'Worst Mayor Ever' essays; links to blogs are generally a bad idea under the external link guidelines, and linking to your own blog is even worse. As for the book, I'm not sure about that. I found the same info on the government web site here, so it sounds pretty plausible to me. By the way, I think immediate removal of unsourced info can only be done if the material is negative; for example, "Ron Littlefield has been convicted of prostitution" would be eligible, but "Ron Littlefield is the president of XYZ Company" wouldn't. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments. However, I couldn't find the book referenced anywhere on the page or website you mentioned, and a search doesn't bring up anything similar. Am I missing something that's related and could add relevance to this external link? Flowanda 05:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about Original Research

Hello!

RJASE1 helped us before on another issue, but he's unavailable until May 31st, so I'd like to ask for your help, if you don't mind.

In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_stove , RJASE1 seemed to indicate that, since bona fide historians devoted exclusively to this topic were not likely to be found, those of us who have an interest in it were the most likely candidates to be contributors, as long as we make sure the article stays neutral.

If this is a valid way to handle it, would you be kind enough to review the article? I ask this because I inserted some very valuable personal history into the History section of the article from a man whose father worked for the company that made these products for many years, and now there's a flag on the article regarding original research. I'd like your take on it, as I don't want to do anything that's against the rules. It seems that information with such detail - given by someone who was there - would be of benefit to your readers. If allowed, does the flag need to remain?

Your thoughts and comments, as always, will be respected and followed. John E. Chambers 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello - just checking in to see if you'd had a chance to review the above request for assistance. John E. Chambers 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot about that. I do think that these references are indeed OK, it's the other information (such as all the stuff tagged with ^{[citation needed]}) that needs citing. I'd also suggest trimming down information that's unverifiable, such as the modern usage statistics. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I'm working on getting all the stuff together so I can make better citing's (did I spell that right?). I'll work on the modern usage part then, too. What about that big box in the middle of the article - can it be removed, or should it stay? John E. Chambers 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the word you were looking for is 'citations'. As for the original research box, I think that you should probably add more citations first. For example, there are three paragraphs in a row that don't have a single reference. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! John E. Chambers 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Canine Companions for Independence

The contributions I made to this page were not spam. I corrected some significant inaccuracies to the page. For example all the types of dogs that CCI offers are not included in the original page and some of the information is outdated. And there were also some misspellings like of Massachusetts. I cited all my sources. I am new to Wikipedia so I am not familiar with all your procedures, and I'm sorry if I followed them incorrectly. I did my best. However my information is still correct and not spam. Corfus,

To be honest, I'm really not sure about this case myself. I wouldn't object if you redid your edits, but I'm not saying that I think that it's OK, if you get what I'm saying. Basically, I'm neutral on this one. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Quadradius

I wrote an article about tht website for the second time and it's been deleted again. Everytime it's deleted I never get good reason as to why. It's objective, the website itself has been reviewed by sources that have articles about them i.e. Newgrounds and my article was not self-promotion since I did not make the game. Can you you please give me some hints here? Deletion 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to prove notability using multiple third-party reliable sources. Being covered by Newgrounds simply won't cut it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How many reviews are needed before this will be allowed? So far there are 4. Newgrounds, Webgamemagazine Jayisgames and Richard Garfield, creator of Magic the Gathering.

Could you show me links to these reviews, please? I assume that they're available online. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.quadradius.com/quadradius/PressAndReviews/ 13:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Newgrounds mention seems to me to honestly be too brief to count; it's basically one paragraph that describes how to play. The other two, I'm not sure about. On the one hand, Jay is Games and Web-Game Magazine links are definitely long enough to be a non-trivial review. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether they actually can count as reliable sources. I'd suggest creating User:Deletion/Quadradius (I'll put the old article there if you want) and working from there, incorporating the references and making sure not to make the article overly-long (a section on the creators, for example, is probably not necessary, as is a section on how the game works technically.) Then let me know when you're ready and I'll move it back to Quadradius. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could make that page that would be great. I'll keep working on it etc. Just so you know I incorporated Game Play based on the fact that Magic the Gathering had game play included. Let me know your opinion on that and any other guidance you have for doing this article so it comes out well is appreciated.18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it should be there now. And I don't really have a problem with the section titled 'Game Play', I was talking about the one titled 'Technical Aspect'. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry, i knew that, but im temporarily using it til wednesday , then i might only occasionally(meanin sort of rarely) use it..=] Me and my sis against da world!!! 01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

This is a purely social call. I would like to be friends, I hope you don't already have alot of friends. Then their would be no time for me.We should create a Veinor-JJAshfiel friendship page. And then talk about it in loving terms. THink about it. God Bless.JJAshfiel 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I am not sure what "trolling" is. I just was looking for a friend and I admire your work here at Wikipedia. I was simply hoping that we could be friends. If not, I understand, you probably already have lots of friends. But I don't, and I was hoping we could at least be friendly with one another online. Perhaps I came on a bit strong with my friendship page idea, if so I am sorry. It wont happen again.JJAshfiel 13:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way. If somebody in real life comes up to you, and you've never met them before, and asks to be your friend, you probably get creeped out by that. I'm not saying I don't like you, but I'm not saying that a 'friendship page' would be a good idea. I'm perfectly willing to help you out if you need help with something, though.

Oh, and 'trolling' means being annoying with the explicit goal of annoying people, rather than being unintentionally annoying. I've had more than a few people troll on this page. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, would you direct me to some information on using Wikipedia, I am a little Green, and I hope that someday I can become an Administrator, Secretary, or Vice President of Wikipedia. I have high , and lots of good ideas. Please help me. JJAshfiel 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OOPS

my bad? CINEGroup 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

PSA edit

Why was PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines) data removed about the artwork?

Because there were no good sources that I could find other than the websites for Mr. Darrow (I suspect you are him; am I correct?), which are not reliable sources, due to Mr. Darrow's involvement. A quick Google search for pacific southwest airlines david darrow shows nothing, and 'psa darrow' just gives Mr. Darrow's sites. Also, I'm not really sure that this is even encyclopedic material; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Google the final word on verification? What do you want, invoices? Yes, I am Darrow, and everything I said is factual. Perhaps you have no interest in who created a certain piece of artwork, but there are hundres of thousands of illustrators who contribute to our culture, and they and other people do care about the origins of much of advertising art. Please reconsider. It is encyclopedic, and not a ploy for advertising. I do have not done an illustration for over 10 years. --drdarrow 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying Google is the end-all, be-all of verification, but I'm saying that if it hasn't been covered, I'm not sure that it's really verifiable enough for Wikipedia. Also, the conflict of interest guidelines say that editing information about yourself like this is strongly discouraged and almost always a bad idea. And I think adding a link to your own web site in the external links section was also a pretty bad idea; that just makes your addition seem like advertising. Also, a lot of the information, such as the phone calls, requests that were made, are also going to be nearly impossible to verify, since they probably weren't recorded. Basically, there are huge issues regarding how much of this can actually be sourced. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being unnecessarily and harmfully purist and maybe a bit anal-retentive about this. Wikipedia is loaed with unverifiable data, much of it opinion. Most of the adjectives used in the pages of Wiki are unfactual, unverifiable opinion-based words, that are editorial in nature, and not stripped of bias. The items I stated are true, factual, and of interest to many. I needn't have a link to my site. Was only using that to indicate that David R. Darrow is a real person. Reconsider.--drdarrow 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because other pages on Wikipedia have opinion or unverifiable information doesn't mean that it's OK. And you have yet to address the issue of verifiability with any seriousness. Without verifiability, we can't really include that information. If you don't think that you can reach an agreement solely by discussing this with me, you can go to the article's talk page, Requests For 3rd Opinion, or the Mediation Cabal and get a third opinion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to reach an agreement with you. Help me help you.--drdarrow 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Help me help you help me help you. I'm trying to reach an agreement here as well, but so far, I haven't seen any convincing arguments for inclusion of the information in the article. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy Wrestling

Dude... the link I added... it's a free game, and it's fantasy wrestling. What's the deal? If anything, the WWE game is more of a business directory link. Don't be foolish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.229.75.187 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links; the page on fantasy wrestling should not have a list of links to fantasy wrestling sites. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1) You are being unreasonable, and 2) you are conradicting yourself.

- The WWE link is to a business-based fantasy wrestling game. They make money from promoting that link.

- The link to my FREE, NON-COMMERCIAL game was DIRECTLY related to the new school entry on fantasy wrestling that I added that you ALSO REMOVED.

Honestly, don't be a jerk. You're a mod, but you are human... and you are dead wrong.

Besides the GLARING fact that if you knew anything about "Fantasy Wrestling", you would know how incredibly ridicluous most of the info in that entry sounds.

Where am I contradicting myself? The WWE is undoubtedly one of the largest (if not the largest) wrestling-related companies in the world. On the other hand, the link you added is made by some group called the "Web-Based Wrestling Federation, LLC", which doesn't seem to me to be nearly comparable to the WWE. And (if I'm reading the site correctly) signing up for the WWE site is free. They make money through the shop, but that is not being linked to. In any case, however, we are discussing your link, not the WWE one.

And I don't claim to know about fantasy wrestling, but we're not talking about article content here. Your link has nothing to do with that. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey freind

Hiii!..=]..can u semiprotect the Pretty Ricky page..im getting sick and tired of the ip adresses vandalizing the page..it may not be happening now but that is because i put up a notice before..so all the vandals went elsewhere butt they will be back..lol..=]..can u please do it...pleaseeeee...=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a lot of stuff that's blatant vandalism on there; I'd suggest to going to the official protection request page and see what they think. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

well ok..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DjPhenaFoil

I am unsure what your problem is with this article?YellowSnowRecords2 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article does not establish any form of notability. Articles should display evidence of substantial third-party coverage by reliable sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt see much point in continueing it as it was stupid, all you administrators just have complete control over everything and you do whatever you want even when you do not have a clue about the article so i am pretty sick of it, not personnally you but large numbers of people on hereYellowSnowRecords2 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

No... the only thing I changed was on the Nysted section. I just typed "blocked for 3RR, I'm looking into this". I have no idea how that happened. I'll change my password just to be on the safe side. Thanks for fixing that.--Isotope23 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gary McDaid

Just wanted to fill you in on a bit of background on this one: The user who created this page is a sockpuppet of this user, for evidence, see here. This user builds vanity pages centred around Letterkenny and St. Eunan's College, using sockpuppets to hide his activities from other editors. He also constantly lifts copyright images and text and pastes them here. He has employed so many sockpuppets that I once wrongly accused another (unrelated) editor of being one of them. He can be obnoxious and disruptive, seems to have access to several computers, and through sheer persistence generally wears down any editors who have asked him to stop doing this kind of thing. That's all! Pathlessdesert 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Shonkey

So i feel my page is not being let to be because it is said to be nonsense. There are pages about Jackalopes. This has the same merit. ShonkeyArmy

Except the Jackalope article treats the existence of the jackalope as fiction; the Shonkey article behaves as if it was real, even 'citing' sources to say that Oregon has the largest population (which, of course, is not what the source says). Also, the jackalope myth is a LOT more prevalent than the 'shonkey'; 389,000 Google hits for 'jackalope' vs 4,620 for 'shonkey'. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Renames

Please don't remove requests from Wikipedia:Changing usernames [1]. Its better to tag the request with {{CHU|notused|username}} substituting "username" for the account that was used to make the request. You can also notify the account about the request. A crat has also expressed her unhappiness with outright removal [2]. WjBscribe 00:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Corr

Hi there! About the changes you made on the Andrea Corr wiki.. although I can understand where you are coming from, that text is from Andrea Corr's official (Ten Feet High) biography. Of course some stuff are made "bigger", but it's technically official info and not an advertisement. Also her Myspace & Bebo pages are her only official websites for the moment, which also includes clips to a few new songs. I reckon it should be part of her profile as it's a part her life, part of what's up to and her profile wouldn't be complete without recent happenings. An official site has the same purpose as those profiles, so if an official site is allowed, this should be allowed too. Thanks. M. 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, an official site's purpose is to make the artist look good. Wikipedia articles need to maintain a neutral point of view. Sentences such as "In essence, she has thrown open the creative doors to reveal a wealth of hidden riches, a natural gift for lyrical storytelling, and a voice that errs more on the side of deadpan and understatement than traditional diva delivery." are definitely advertisements, and I almost deleted the page for being a blatant advertisement until I saw a version in the history that wasn't an advertisement. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Goldstein Gallery

This site is not hosted by the University of Minnesota or The Goldstein Gallery. I initiated this project. I am working with the collection of the Goldstein Gallery as a contract lecturer of History of Costume.

The artifact analyses that we hope to load into this article are original analyses written by upper division undergraduates in the clothing design and retail merchandising programs. They wrote these analyses after examining the artifacts in question and researching published sources to narrow down their possible dates and likely use in history. The artifact analyses are intended as a composite of the best of all the analytical work by the students. Sketches included in the articles are drawn by the students themselves.

The use of historic photographs published in the 20th century within the artifact analyses is done for the purpose of helping narrow down the dating of the garments in pursuit of general education purposes. We therefore claim fair use of the copyrighted materials. The photographs themselves are more than 100 years old and therefore their copyright has expired, or never existed.

The pupose of the site is to make this information broadly available to costume historians, theater costumer designers, and clothing designers.

Most of the acquisitions of the Goldstein Gallery are not recorded in descriptive text, drawing or photograph in any published source. The published cataloge provides photographs of a few items and lists it's costume holdings at the time it was published about 20 years ago with short one-line descriptions. Since that publication hundreds of new items have been added to the collection. Therefore the majority of the Goldstein's holdings remain available only to those members of the costume history, clothing design, and theater costuming community who live in the vicinity or can afford to travel to St. Paul, Minnesota to see them.

Also, the Golstein Gallery continues to acquire new historic costume items every month. No traditional form of hard copy publication could keep up with the acquisitions to make the important popular culture history information embedded within those garments available to the public.

Since my upper division students perform 6 artifact analyses every year under professional suppervision, I thought that Wikipedia could serve as a venue for disseminating information on specific historic garments worn in the past in Minnesota and in the United States. Of particular interest are the garments that were produced and worn before the advent of mass production of apparel. This includes the majority of children's and women's wear in the 19th century, and more than three-quarters of men's wear in that era. Each item is a unique interpretation in its time of what was considered fashionable or appropriate dress. Individual clothing designers/seamstresses, whether home sewers or professional seamstresses and tailors, had great influence on how the people in an area dressed, so that for instance, people in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota would be dressed slightly differently than people in nearby Des Moines, Iowa, because their clothing was designed and constructed by different people. The notability of this imformation lies in its specificity, i.e. detailed descriptions of actual garments, and in its uniqueness---each of these garments is a unique example of what it meant to be properly dressed in a specific time in history.

An additional reason for using Wikidedia as a medium for disseminating this information has to do with the problem of dating the garments. Donors of the garments provide to the Goldstein Gallery the information that has been handed down through family oral history, but oral history has a tendency to collapse facts into smaller bundles of information that can generalize information. The process of dating a garments requires comparison with similar garments, or garments with similar details, of known date and provenance. Wikipedia provides a good venue for "debating" the dating of specific garments through the editing process. Individuals who have examined the garment in question can all contribute to the construction of the garments description in the Wikipedia article describing that garment.Lutz0013 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a discussion forum, or a webspace provider. An article on the Goldstein gallery should be about the gallery, not contain an exhaustive list of the garments inside of it. That information would be in an article about said garments, but I highly doubt they would be notable themselves. Notability is the main requirement for inclusion, along with verifiability, and I don't think that there are enough reliable sources about the Goldstein Gallery to make it notable. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The garments selected are not merely a hodge-podge collection of old clothes. The Curator of the collection selects garments that are important to the growth in knowledge of costume history, as well as pieces that are aesthetically important and in good enough condition to bear close scutiny. Publication of their description adds to public knowledge of the history of the ordinary people of the United States, as opposed to the official histories of institutions and VIPs.

It would certainly be acceptable and seem appropriate to me if this page were attached to a costume history section of Wikipedia. Dr. Hazel Lutz, Co-author of The Visible Self Lutz0013 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A Smile

Jupiter12 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jupiter12 05:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Interactive TV

Further to the below, can I ask why you have apparently removed the external links to informitv.com in the articles on interactive television and IPTV? Please would you reinstate them, as this site provides a valuable reference to the field. Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.73.45 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't remove any of those links; it was User:Requestion. I'd suggest you bring it up with him (or her, as the case may be). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedal Steel Guitar

Regarding the removal of Jeff Peterson on the pedal steel guitar page. Jeff Peterson has played on 10 number one songs for Clint Black alone. He belongs on this page and is not a frivolous add. Concerning the external link--it is his website. There are nearly twenty other players with links to their own respective websites in the same section. There was no intention to "promote" his website--simply allowing people to view it; exactly as the other 20 something steel players have. This man has been playing 30 this respective instrument for over 30 years--and is highly regarded--placement on this page is a given. Please do not remove him from this list. Thank you for your help! ~~~~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.150.100.191 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I decided to go through and remove all the links on both the lists, since Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. If you're that sure that inclusion is a 'given', then it shouldn't be a problem to write a quick article on him (at Jeff Peterson (steel guitarist) or something similar) and prove notability using reliable sources (which does not include his official web site)? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of S Holding

S Holding is a notable article because it is about a notable company that exists, and, therefore did not meet the qualifications for speedy deletion.

The article claimed that this company controls a majority interest in Microsoft and Google. While this would indeed be notable, it was backed up with no reliable sources, and a quick google search of "s holding" google microsoft turns up nothing. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and I wasn't able to find any for this one. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MW Page

Hello,

I am not quite sure what is going on but I do need to remove a hoax from our page. I am the VP of Marketing for Market Wire and the Emulex Hoax that was placed on there by a competitor needs to be removed. The info on our page is currently inaccurate. I am trying to bring the page up to date but you seem to be stopping me everytime.

please advise on how i can clear this up. Its completely ridiculous that our listing has had wrong information added to it and i am trying to clarify but you keep adding the info back up there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MWmarketing (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

If you are the VP of marketing for Market Wire, then you should definitely not be editing the page, due to your conflict of interest. And the information seems to be backed up to me; note the reference to the SEC's official website. Also, I deleted the article twice because I didn't realize it had a history; from my point of view, it looked like a company was creating a spammy article, so I deleted it as being blatant advertisement. The information is referenced properly, so I see no reason to remove it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

hi

sorry 2 hear u have adhd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spudleyspuds (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

About Marian Merritt speedy deletion

I really don't think that this article should be in the speedy deletion aricles, it's really useful! Thank you. Please reply here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megahmad&action=edit&section=9 Megahmad 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but how do you know that this article is not notable? and if it isn't, it will be and it will not hurt wikipedia if it isn't, Thank you, you can delete it if you want, but I don't recommend to do that, you are the judge, Good luck.

Then I can't create any page here, because all of the notable articles are exist. right? That's a bad system, really.! I just wanted to help, anyway Good luck Mr. Veinor.

Ok, have a good day Mr. Veinor. You're doing your work, I'm sorry, but I was mad because I've created alot of articles and they go in the speedy deletion, Thanks.

-- Megahmad, a Wikipedia lover!

About Korean American Professionals Society speedy deletion

I made the necessary changes to the article to not appear as blatant adverstising anymore. Please let me know what else i must do to stop speedy deletion. I have seen other similar non-profit groups that have not been deleted and i'm wondering what I'm missing from my page that they have not? appreciate your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seattlekaps (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The article, in my opinion, still reads like advertising. Sentences such as "KAPS vision is to create a medium that promotes Korean business and culture in a way that is easily accessible and comfortable to anyone interested" are definitely in a tone that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It reads more like something one might find in a brochure than in an encyclopedia. And what other non-profit groups are you talking about?

By the way, there's another issue here: notability. An article can be speedily deleted if it does not make a claim of notability, and I'm personally concerned about KAPS's notability. Also, I have to ask, given the username: are you involved with KAPS? Because people should generally not edit articles on groups with which they're involved, for the simple reason that they tend to write as if to put the article's subject in a favorable light. It's an unconscious bias, to be sure, but it definitely exists. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Økapi biography

The first version of my editing was a joke, and i'm sorry for that! but the last one was serious. Økapi is a real italian composer and the bio is true! Okapi66 21:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Okapi66

The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth or whether something exists, but notability. Articles that do not claim notability can be speedily deleted; in this case, I thought it would be better to redirect, but the principle is the same. If you can find proof of notability using reliable sources, then I don't see any problem with having Økapi be about the musician, with a piece of text along the top to explain the difference between Okapi and Økapi (preferably using one of the templates listed at Template:Otheruses templates. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jake "Dr. Tre" Bashore

I was just wondering why my article is being deleted? I was planning on creating the whole page and then getting sources shortly afterword. If I can provide a source will i be able to continue my page? I will check back in about two hours. Thanks Jbashore67 22:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest not creating an article on yourself; such articles tend to be poorly written. I don't think that you're notable enough, since you haven't even provided any reason why you're special or different or whatever phrasing you'd like to use, especially not one backed up with reliable sources. A quick Google search for "jake bashore" turns up nothing, same for "Dr. Tre". Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

K that makes sense...would it be ok if I have one of the current commishioners, of the league I play in, write the article. If the article is poorly written then it could be deleted, but if it is written well could we keep it? And maybe to provide a source i could have someone upload a video or talk to you about me. If not then oh well. Thanks Jbashore67 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Videos and interviews are not exactly reliable sources. They need to be independent of the subject of the article (you), and be generally regarded as trustworthy and subject to some sort of verification process. If you can find multiple reliable sources about you, I can't see why one of the commissioners couldn't do it, but I'd make sure that you have some good sources first, something like newspapers. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for clearing things up for me. I dont think i have the time to do this nor do I really need to be on Wikipedia. So, im not gonna make the article. Thanks for your help on the questions i had. Jbashore67 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nigerian email

Just for the record, since I came clean to Swatjester way back when, It was I who created that email, and it wasnt just a test for a spam filter, but the kind. The activity on the list exploded, and I wanted to see if we had a human approver, in which case the message would be denied, or a spambot filter, which would probably allow this through, and someone tweaking its settings would account for the explosion in approved traffic. -M^ask? 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverse Engineer

Yesterday, I've added a external link to a useful tool to know what an application is doing. That's part of reverse engineer. I know because I work reversing and this tool is a contribution for the community of us. It's free for everyone and I don't understand why you removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyabo (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I removed that link because it doesn't really provide more information about reverse engineering, just about a specific tool. In general, links to specific products should be avoided (except on the Wikipedia article on that product), because otherwise it opens the metaphorical floodgates and everybody and their uncle starts linking to their own tool. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point but this tool is related, so where do I put it? It has a page in wikipedia too: Spy_Studio. I saw that there is a category 'See also' but I don't see this category that is very useful. I worked in reverse a lot of time and I use IDA, Filemon, Regmon, custom COM spies and other tools to monitor applications runtime and they are very useful. I understand you but I ask you: where do I put it? Pyabo

In this case, I'm not sure. Possibly a List of reverse engineering software, but I'm not sure. Not everything has to be linked. Incidentally, I'm actually not sure about whether Spy Studio merits a Wikipedia article, so I put it up for deletion. You can see the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spy Studio. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Unblock www.cais-soas.com

FYI -- these links have some recent history -- see this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ParthianShot, in particular this subsection (permanent link), which was cited by Dmcdevit when he blacklisted this domain.

You may want to touch base with Dmcdevit about the whitelisting question. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My Image

You agreed with User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, what do you mean by that?.If you mean you you agreed the image was not fair use and should be deleted, that is fine because although I wanted to keep the image, that was not the problem and could have been discussed.But I don't understand, he said you were the one who deleted the other image, but you must know you have to tag if first, or is it just because I didn't provide a rationale for it, because he also deleted several other unsourced ones I uploaded without notification and I thought it wasn't right.And I will provide an article for the image, which of course I would do anyway if you think that is a reason to keep it. Rodrigue 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The plastic box around the image you uploaded doesn't add to the article, and it contains copyrights of grading marks, so that doesn't really fall under fair use. Furthermore, if I am understanding this correctly, that's not even the most valuable edition of Action Comics #1, so I can't see any circumstance under which that image, and not this image, should be used. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Image

Well I removed the tag that you put on the article, because If I'm not mistaken it said that if the image is in use on an article, which it now is, then the tag can be removed, unless you have some objection. Rodrigue 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a definite stretch of the fair use rationale. Most of the image is of the comic, not of the grading... thing (whatever it's called). I'd suggest cropping the image to only include that and use that instead. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by cropping it?.Your saying to crop it and remove the picture of the comic book entirely and just use the grading seal, what use will that kind of image be, the point is to see the comic book thats being rated. Rodrigue 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point there. I'm actually pretty neutral about this; I just think that that's a bad image for the Action Comics #1 article. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(comment moved from new section to keep it together) I was never planning on using it for the Action Comics article, because I know that the other image of just the comic book is more important for that article.You must have thought I was trying to replacing that image with the one I uploaded, but I thought mine would be good articles such as CGC to show the highest rated copy of that comic book in existence, and it also illustrates the packaging that they use for preservation of comic books. Rodrigue 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to step in anything here, but I believe that the image can actually serve a purpose for the article on Comic Guaranty LLC. To that end, I have attempted to beef up the fair use justification as well as note the respective copyrights for DC Comics and CGC. Also, I don't think the image should be cropped as it then would not illustrate the concept of "slabbing", i.e., sealing the comic in a protective well. --GentlemanGhost 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I do see your point there. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Power Gold Guides Gold Farming Discussion

I believe this was a legitimate link, we have an open email forum going regarding the ethics and morals surrounding gold farming and gold RMT. (e-mail removed) 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but... the link went straight to the main page, which is basically to promote the site's services, many of which violate the various games' terms of service. I don't see any links to any sort of discussion about the morals of farming, just 'Buy my bot and make gold fast!' links. Also, please don't remove other people's comments, please do sign at the bottom of your post (like I'm doing), and don't post your e-mail addresses, or the spambots will get it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Kwai Nyu Rugby Debate

Many thanks for your patience in dealing with the discussion revolving around the entry on "Quai Nyu Rugby." I'm not sure whether the little "Talk to me" sign is an actual invitation or just something everyone sticks onto their signitures. Anyhow, if it helps you to make a decision, here is what I just recently added to the discussion regarding the "notability" and "reliable sources." If you have any tips on how to render the article more relevant, please do share them with me. It was, of course, my intent to add something to the encyclopedia that would broaden and enrich the knowledge base. Again, many thanks.

At least one published literary source mentions the Priory Rugby Club by name as the oldest and most accomplished junior rugby team in Missouri (see "In Good Soil": http://www.amazon.com/Good-Soil-Founding-Priory-1954-1973/dp/0966210417/ref=sr_1_1/002-8021912-0026420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178681222&sr=1-1 Since "notable" is defined as " "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". [It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education...] The fact that over a dozen junior league teams now exist in Missouri due to the efforts of the Priory Rugby Club, I hope this would qualify it as having had a demonstrable effect on athletics and education (granted, ony on a regiona level). Does this help? I don't mean to be pushy, but I'd like to see the article stick around (not a reason for keeping it around, obviously, but at leas it explains my motivation...)KwaiNyu 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an invitation and a way of showing people who are new how to communicate with me. I already replied to this on the page, but here it goes again: The definition of 'notable' Wikipedia uses has a more precise definition; see Wikipedia:Notability, specifically, the notability criteria for organizations. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry for the repeat, but thanks again for the patience. And nice to meet ya.KwaiNyu 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Suzanne Shell

Venoir, I hope I am doing this right. You sent me a notice about libel for Suzanne Shell's page, but I think you need to look at the two links that were recently added for her page illegally affiliating her with AFRA and The Truth is Told websites. This is a serious smear campaign, especially the latter, against her. If my disclaimer is libel, then so are these links. They should be removed, as well. Please be fair in this matter. 65.185.137.147 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Libel65.185.137.147

I am actually removing the links; it's another anonymous editor who's adding them (see, for example, this). However, a link on a Wikipedia page does not necessarily apply affiliation; on the other hand, saying that those are the official sites would. I am being fair; please make sure to check the history of a page before you blindly accuse other people, and remember to assume good faith. Oh, and two other minor issues:

1. Please sign your comments at the end; all that is necessary is to type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That helps people know who said what.
2. Please add comments to the bottom of talk pages (unless you're replying to an existing discussion, in which case you add it in the section of that discussion. Otherwise, people get confused.

Other than that, this is the proper way to contact someone. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop laughing at how awful a sock-puppeteer this guy is: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged cyberstalking at Suzanne Shell. --Dynaflow babble 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure just the 24hr block is what's called for? You have an attack-only account spawned from an attack-only IP, and then another IP that's only been used for vandalism, linkspamming, and personal attacks, and, apparently, block evasion. You might just want to indef block them. --Dynaflow babble 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

TeachersCount

Hello Venoir, You've deleted a page we just set up that describes our teacher appreciation non-profit, TeachersCount. Can you please reinstate it? We don't sell anything, we're 100% a non-profit to get the word out about what teachers are doing, and we find this very worthwhile.

Thanks, TeachersCount <e-mail redacted>

First, I don't think you should be creating an article regarding a group that you are related with; the conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise against it, because it makes writing in a neutral tone a lot harder.

Second, there are notability criteria for organizations. You need to show some coverage of the organization by multiple reliable secondary sources (i.e., sources that are not related to TeachersCount, so no press releases). The non-profit, non-commercial aspect doesn't really enter into it. Also, posting your e-mail address on Wikipedia is a bad idea; spambots are known to crawl it regularly and look for e-mail addresses. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First point acknowledged, but question: If we rewrite the entry including multiple outside coverage from other organizations as primary sources, will you allow our post to stay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeachersCount (talk • contribs).

Probably, as long as they're not just one-sentence blurbs. But, like I said, I'd be really careful to make sure to keep a neutral tone, and be warned that it might be modified extensively or put up for the full, 5-day deletion process, or something else. I can't really tell you what'll happen unless you create the article. And please reply in the same section, otherwise, it gets really confusing. Also, sign your posts with ~~~~ so other people can see who's saying what. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

15:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)~ TeachersCount

Hello again Veinor,

Again the entry got taken down because of copyright violations. I have written to the wikimedia org address and stated permission to use text from our site under the GDFL guidelines. I have also been warned by your site that I may get banned from adding future postings if I persist in putting up TeachersCount articles. If I try to post it once more, what are my chances of success/ versus being sent to Wikipedia purgatory?

Thanks, TeachersCount15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)~

See response on User talk:Veinor#TeachersCount 2. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rehasher

Hey I was editing that Rehasher page that you just deleted.

Why so?

I made the page because im a fan of the band, not some music promoter.

Wouldnt it have been better to converse with me on what would have made it better rather than just delete all my work? --Superandy 07 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, there was really borderline notability. Going through the notability criteria for bands, I don't see any claims of anything except for number 6 (having notable members) and maybe number 5 (releasing multiple records on major labels). So maybe deletion was out of line, but there are still serious notability issues here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree No Idea Records is one of the most recognizable indie labels with such bands on its rosters; Against Me!, Dillinger Four, Hot Water Music and Less Than Jake.

Also here's Rehasher's profile on Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:dbfixqraldfe

And have toured out of the country suppourting Less Than Jake.

--Superandy 07 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The version I deleted basically copied the body of the article from the allmusic link you posted, so there's definitely no way to allow it due to copyright concerns. And, in any case, the core notability criteria is coverage by multiple independed reliable sources; preferably, ones with more coverage than the allmusic site. If you can find a couple of those, I don't see any other huge reasons for it to not have a page. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Forensic Chemistry Link

I added the external link of Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine to the Forensic Chemistry article because it is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) forensic training institution that specializes in teaching people about forensic chemistry. The link is valid according to wikipedia's rules for external links, and it offers additonal resources of information for people interested in learning more about forensic chemistry. Please add the link back to the article, since it is a learning institution that will only help people researching information on forensic chemistry. 165.176.123.2 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a link to the resources page might have been better to begin with, but I don't object to a link to this page. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Nixon

i am sorry man..my bad yo—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nixon98 (talk • contribs).

Some Commercial Links allowed on Offer in Compromise Article

You removed a link I added to this page stating it didn't comply with the external link policy which I don't agree with and will work within the page to get it added as you suggested. My only gripe is that there are three other external links on that page which are being allowed and they are all three are blatantly commercial links with no educational value. Why are some commerical links allowed and why are some removed? Is it your choice...my choice....should I just remove them myself? Let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Coloradan (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I only see three separate sites: the official IRS website (hardly commercial), watax.com, which, while the overall site is commercial, does have useful information, and little advertising. The final link (offer-in-compromise.info), is probably commercial, so I removed that one. The balance is not whether the link goes to a commercial website, but whether the target has enormous amounts of advertising and provides little to no information. The link you added, on the other hand, requires supplying a large amount of personal information, and I had to try several disposable e-mail addresses (I really hate spam) before I found one that it would accept. Then I finally got the link. I might consider linking directly to the PDF, but definitely not to the page that required registration. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that so quickly. Yeah that form is not working (being fixed right now) that I linked to and it does request personal information... Would you consider this page http://www.ctctax.com/TS_offerincompromise.asp It's just straight information on the program in a question and answer format. Answers are from myself as a tax attorney specializing in this area. I honestly believe it would be helpful to users searching for options to resolve their tax problems.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Coloradan (talk • contribs).

That one looks good; it does have some valuable information, and there's not a whole lot of advertising. By the way, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them; it makes conversations a lot easier to read. Thanks! Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and keep up the good work. I'll add it back in. The Coloradan 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Zoey Grey

References have been added. Article is currently being written.. please stop jumping the gun and deleting the article before it is finished. Additional media and news coverage is also being broadcast ATM, so additional references will take a few hours to compile. Otherwise the current references include multiple independent mainstream sources. Thank you for your interest. ZoeyGrey 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

With the reference, I didn't see any mention whatsoever of Zoey Grey in there, neither in the article nor the video. I did a google search for "Zoey Grey" and got 62 results... I'm of the opinion that notability probably will not be established. Remember that a simple 10-second soundbite or a sentence or two doesn't establish notability; we need non-trivial mentions of Zoey Grey herself. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Zoey Grey

Zoey Grey's CityTV interview was on atleast three television stations aggregated from CityNews, and she was also on a primetime radio spot.. I expect she may also be mentioned in the upcoming Toronto Sun article, I don't know if they'll mention her name in print but the articles are in reference to her and her peers.

I understand your concern with notability BUT Speedy Deleting this article was uncalled for..

I wasn't even finished adding references and the article was "in use" / "under construction", but with the references that i did manage to post in the 15 or so minutes before it was deleted it should be deserving of atleast an AfD.

Please tell me how to go about a restoration review for this page on my talk page as I'm kind of lost and can't find were to file for it, thank you! ZoeyGrey 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review is the page you're looking for. But remember that articles have to be about that person, not about the general group that they're in, or the program that they're participating in. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; projected notability is not the same as actual notability. If you need help with the deletion review process, I'll help you nominate the page. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe she meets wp:bio because she was featured in multiple mainstream media as a peer 'representative' of a highly publicied and undisputably notable program (Dreams Take Flight) sponsored by Air Canada.

With out 'divining' what's going to be in tomorrows newspaper based on todays news report- she's still been featured all over the TV & Radio media covering the event that is happening for her (and 279 other children; but she's one of the handfull that have been spokes people for the peer group )

I think I figured out the restoration review process..

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zoey_Grey. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ZoeyGrey 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

'This is not the proper way to get something reviewed; article is already up for DRV'

Sorry :( I thought I did it right, am I aloud to comment on the review? can you provide link? (please also see my talk page for further discussion) Thank you for your help, I'm kind of new to getting me articles ran through the ringer. :) ZoeyGrey 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You did it right when you created Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_9#Zoey_Grey; the other page you created (that I deleted) was the improper one. Pages under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are for when a page exists and someone wants it deleted. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Vital Might

Hi Veinor,

Our article about THE VITAL MIGHT was just declined because of autobiographical reasons.

We could have one of our thousands of fans write this article about us but it seems pointless to just e-mail the content to someone else to post it.

We believe this band is notable under your guidelines. The band is nationally touring, participated in the WBCN Rock & Roll Rumble which is a notable contest, and has released an album. We'd appreciate if you would reconsider publishing the article.

Thank you Thevitalmight 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Andy Milk

The notability criteria for bands do specify that winning or placing in a major contest generally establishes notability, and that publishing multiple albums on major labels does as well. However, I don't see any claim, either in your comment or in the original page, that they won or placed, which is part of the 'major contest' criteria. Indeed, on the WBCN Rock & Roll Rumble page, they are listed as a 'participating band'; of course, if this information is correct, please let me know. Second, release of an album is not enough; the guidelines stipulate multiple albums on major labels; from what I can tell, it looks like it was released on the band's own album.

And I still would've deleted the article if it was posted by a fan; simply being an autobiography is not criteria for speedy deletion. Failing to assert notability, however, is. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Veinor,

Thank you for your response. The Vital Might was selected and did indeed participate in the 2007 WBCN Rock & Roll Rumble, so that should establish the band's notability.

Thank you,Thevitalmight 19:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Andy Milk 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they did not get into the semifinals, let alone the finals. From WP:MUSIC

"A musician or ensemble...is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:...Has won or placed in a major music competition."

Note the words in bold; winning or acheiving a significant placement is necessary. The Vital Might did neither. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Veinor, One blurb that was not included in the original post is: The Vital Might placed 2nd in the Ralph Lauren/Atlantic Records national music video search for their "Bird of Black Fire" video. Reference: http://www.ralphrocks.com/ Placement can be verified by Lindsay Wallner at Ralph Lauren: <e-mail redacted> Thank you, Thevitalmight 14:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Andy Milk Furthermore, to clarify about the WBCN Rock & Roll Rumble, being selected to participate in the WBCN Rock & Roll Rumble is equivalent to placing. A certain number of criteria is used to pick the bands, it is not a voluntary competition. Past selected bands that did not advance include: Powerman 5000, Mission of Burma, Cave In, Piebald, Bim Skala Bim, Del Fuegos

Please don't include other people's e-mail addresses; spambots crawl Wikipedia talk pages looking for them.

As for your main claim, I think that this has evolved to a point where input from other community members might be a good idea. While the original article didn't make any claims of notability (whether being in the WBCN competition is equivalent to placing is debatable), I think that the additional information you have given me could possibly merit a full articles for deletion discussion. Do you agree? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. I feel that the WBCN Rock & Roll Rumble selection and the 2nd place in the Ralph Lauren/Atlantic Records contest establishes notability, even if the latter was not used to claim notability. Thank you Thevitalmight 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Andy Milk

OK, check out The Vital Might and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vital Might. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

TeachersCount 2

Veinor,

Why did you take down our posting again? We already gave copyright permission, write it in an encyclopedaic tone, and included outside sources including one from the White House showing why TeachersCount is a legit. entry. Please explain!!!!!!!

19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it down because copyright permission was not asserted in the version that I had deleted. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Page Taken Down

Why was my AssBurgers redirect taken down? Mike^(Talk)/_(Cont) 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it needed? It's an extremely unlikely typo; it's just puerile humor. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually met people who spelled Aspergers as Assburgers. 201.130.139.224 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arctic Fire page

Sorry, I can see now how it was taken for advertising, I have nothing to do with that company. I was just making the page to fix a red link on the fire extinguisher page under the section I made "types of agents" section. What specifficly on that page was advertising? Do I have to modify the agent's name? Or also talk about a competing product made by their competior on that page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NordicFire (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It's more of the overall tone. You wrote that it is "Considered superior to almost all other agents in extinguishing and protecting people and materials from fire and heat", and that it "will rapidly extinguish flames, cool superheated materials, reduce heat damage, and emulsify flammable liquids, and prevent re-ignition." You did not cite any reliable sources. Mentioning competitor's products is not necessary, nor is changing the name (other than creating Arctic Fire instead of Arctic fire; the two are different). It's really the unsourced issue that looks like something you might find on the manufacturer's website (not saying it is, just saying it's not in the tone expected of an encyclopedia). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. before I rewrite it, I'll try to find some information UL testing has found on it. (still getting used to the time stamp thing) --NordicFire 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Raglan Blog

Hi. You removed the external link to the Raglan Village Blog. This is the official site of the Raglan Local History Group. It includes historical information and resources pertinent to the study of Raglan Village History. It is not a personal blog. I would be grateful if you could reinstate this link http://raglanvillage.blogspot.com/

Now that I am on this topic. can you advise me how I would edit a page title? I refer to the Raglan page that refers only to Raglan New Zealand. It is very frustrating that when I search for Raglan only the New Zealand entry comes up. can you tell me how I would add 'New Zealand' to the Raglan page for New Zealand.

Many thanks CLMorgan 00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that blogs are not reliable sources, due to their lack of fact-checking, so they are generally not included as links per the external link guidelines.

As for your other question, there is a "page move" facility. However, this is not always the proper action to take; I am actually not sure what the appropriate title is. There is currently a link at the top to a disambiguation page that lists other Raglans; it might be more appropriate for the disambiguation page to be called 'Raglan' and the NZ page to be called 'Raglan, New Zealand.' I'll get back to you on that; hopefully, in less time than it took for me to reply to this! (I was busy with other, more pressing concerns). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not claim ownership

All I said was that it is not considered polite to update another user's user page. I did NOT claim ownership. And if I want to claim to be a WPian who uses GNU/Linux that is up to me, and is no business of you nor anyone else. Paul Beardsell 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You took this issue to an admin forum where it was rejected. My answer to your arguments. Paul Beardsell 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

?

What caused the topas page to be blatent advertising? It had a history of the company and explanations of the company products? I looked at other company pages first to see what it should look like. guzowsjf

Sentences such as "An exceptional family of plastic materials, TOPAS COC resins combine excellent transparency, high moisture barrier, high strength and stiffness, and very low shrinkage and warpage" and "Crystal Dew provides a beautiful accent to home décor or any gala affair." are decidedly unencyclopedic. They read more like a magazine advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Read-only memory

Hi, I'm wondering why you moved some footnotes back into the main text in this article. I had moved these somewhat peripheral, detailed points to footnotes because I was worried that portions of the main text were getting overly complex. Would you prefer if I call the footnotes section "Notes & References"? This is a common practice on Wikipedia, for example in the Inkjet printer or SD card articles. Also, I understand why the DramExchange link might be considered spammy... however it's pretty much the only good source of information for memory prices, which fluctuate daily. MOXFYRE (contrib) 21:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of putting text into footnotes like that. I recognize that it sometimes may have its purpose, but I'm not sure that it's appropriate in this case. The text you moved doesn't seem to me to be overly complicated, though I can see your point here with the explanation for the naming of "flash" memory. As for the prices, I'm not sure if that's encyclopedic information. If the price is indeed volatile, like you say, then I'm not sure if it's appropriate on Wikipedia; prices in general tend to be unencyclopedic information, and the $17 price might only be for one model/capacity/whatever. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! I'll leave the footnotes alone for now. MOXFYRE (contrib) 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the unblock. Cheers! Wikipediarules2221 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Uberorbs

Just thought I'd err on the side of caution rather than get involved in a tag war. DarkAudit 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism from 194.242.148.29

Hi there, I noticed you delivered the last warning about vandalism to that ip address.. They've vandalised another couple of articles: [3], [4]

I've reverted one and the other has been reverted also.. What's the procedure for escalating this? I've added an entry at [5], so hopefully that's enough to get an admin to take things further.. Cheers. NathanLee 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Block

I'm a great editor who tirelessly contributes solid information to Wikipedia. I do not want this to happen again. What can I do to prevent a accidental future block? - hmwithtalk 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a super-duper technical glitch. Basically, instead of your IP showing up as your actual IP, it was showing up as the IP of one of the squid cache servers that everybody's connection goes through (in order to speed it up). So there's nothing you really could've done in this case. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sucks... sort of. Thanks for your help/response. - hmwithtalk 00:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Orbit Micro

Why are other companies allowed to have a page on wikipedia, but not Orbit Micro? If you want better written content that is not a problem, but if Orbit Micro should be deleted from wikipedia, so should other companies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orbitroderick (talk • contribs) 05:44, May 19, 2007 (UTC).

The article was deleted for being a blatant advertisement, especially since it was written in a first-person view. I would strongly suggest that you not create articles about you or your company due to your conflict of interest. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

external links to the Internet Fashion Database

Hi, I received your messages regarding removing all external links to the Internet Fashion Database. After reading the external links policy I fail to see the violations. The only concern that I can see is the frequency in adding the external links - and even this I don't understand why frequency is an issue if the link is legit.

The Internet Fashion Database's purpose is to collect and catalog relationships in the fashion industry from models, agencies, clothing labels, fashion shows, designers, photographers, etc. The external links that were added were to provide readers of these articles for a source of more information on the article subject.

Also, removing the templates seems a little harsh don't you think? A warning on the removal of the links have been sufficient. Removing the templates? What did the templates violate?

Please explain to me what policies were violated and how the Internet Fashion Database is not a valuable resource for users to continue looking for information on the subject?

Thanks,

Ifdb 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated, rapid addition of external links is in contravention of our policy on spam, regardless of the quality of those links. Currently, I am not passing judgement on the link, merely on the rate at which it was added. The templates were actually duplicates of each other (so one of them would need to be deleted anyway), and I deleted the templates as basically used to add the links and doesn't seem to have a whole lot of redeeming value; if we can somehow get a consensus that the link is appropriate on every single page, then it might be OK. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But you did pass judgement on the link, your message to me directly was "However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links". So first you said the links violated the external links policy but now you say I violated the spam policy. That is a bit confusing?

As for the templates, I guess they could have been combined into one. Can I recreate the template?

Ifdb 14:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they don't comply with our policy on spam. The template is rather generic, I'm afraid, and doesn't cover everything, but it generally works 99% of the time. I'd hold off on recreation of the template until there's more widespread approval of the link; templates that exist just to link to a site tend to get frowned upon. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTgui

Could I ask for your assistance in respect of this strange AfD which I myself contributed to some while back? All of the delete votes seem to have disappeared without (apparently) being withdrawn (I certainly did not withdraw mine) and the article has then been relisted and claimed nomination withdrawn. Since there doesn't seem to be a method of alerting every admin to something like this, so I'm turning to the most efficient one I know of. A1octopus 11:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ay; it looks like the first one was archived into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTgui (which shouldn't have happened) and this is the second one. I don't know what to do in this case; I'm sorry. Try asking on the administrators' noticeboard? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, got it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. I didn't particularly want to see the article deleted (if consensus went the other way), I just wanted to make sure that the process wasn't abused. A1octopus 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

wiki page

Apart from playing computer games, what do you know about the history of banking ??!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidlevinger (talk • contribs) 16:34, May 21, 2007 (UTC).

Nothing, but that doesn't excuse your ad hominem argument; you attacked my credibility, rather than my assertion of a lack of notability. In this case, the article did not cite any third-party sources (the company site has an obvious conflict of interest), and the other two are just a trivial mention of Mr. Levinger. Also, I suggest you read our guidelines on autobiographies. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to {helpme}

Thank you for responding so quickly-- yes, that's the person who has been causing problems. I have compiled my concerns at User talk:CurranH/Knikster91. Please have a look at this and let me know what you think. Thanks, Curran (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Belief

Thanks for your comment about the link I added to Belief - I thought it was a valid link, but I don't edit much so I'm happy to take your guidance and have removed it. Matnkat 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)