Jump to content

User talk:Dan1679

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.199.67.217 (talk) at 02:06, 15 June 2006 (→Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Talk page for user AbsolutDan
  • Please click here or use the + sign above (next to the edit this page button) to create a new section for your comment.
  • Please be civil. If you have a problem with any of my edits or reverts, please state the issue calmly and factually, and I will respond in kind.
  • Please sign & date all comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of the comment.
  • If you need to discuss something that doesn't belong on the Talk page, email me.


Archive
Archives

194.83.172.81

You're right. I looked back through a years worth of contributions and there wasn't a single valid edit from the IP. Since its talk page says its a shared IP, I'm not going to block indefinately, but I'll put a three month block on and see if we get any complaints. Hopefully we can get someone in charge there who'll put a stop to it. Thanks for pointing that out. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Lakathryn Allyse

Yea, if someone happens to be doing cleanup and something apepars, it could be deleted quickly. If you look at the list you will see that there is a backlog of articles to be considered. So it all depends on timing. Enjoy editing. Vegaswikian 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. Monson

Hey, I appreciate that you didn't start a tag war, and I really do understand where you come from. I hope you understand my point of view too, and I'll start over the next few days to document and cite sources for the areas you addressed. I really do appreciate you not starting a war, because I don't really feel like getting into one of those. User:Pahoran513, 3 April 2006

Cynthia McKinney

What is your problem, "Dan"? If you have issues with people's opinions, find someone that posted one. I did not say Cynthia McKinney WAS insane. I said that most people believe that she is insane. Learn the difference between an opinion and a fact, idiot.

And quit using your "wizard" status to try and scare people. The whole idea of Wikipedia is to let the public perfect these articles. If you start banning people from offerering their input, you will have destroyed the very spirit of the online encyclodpedia you are overzealously patrolling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.177.20 (talk • contribs) April 09, 2006.

Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions, especially unsourced opinions. Articles here must be written in a neutral point of view, and Must be cited. If you want readers to conclude that Ms. McKinney is mentally imbalanced, present the facts of her behavior in an impartial, impassionate tone and let the facts speak for themselves. There is also no need to resort to personal attacks, as you have on my Talk page. If you have a problem with a user's edit, take it up calmly on their talk page as I am attempting to do here with you. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cynthia McKinney is mentally imbalanced. You know it. I know it. The rest of the United States, with the possible exception of the majority of her kooky district, knows it. I also know that if a poll were taken, the results would back my claim. Anyway, I chose my word carefully. I said that most people believe that Cynthia McKinney is insane, which is indeed a fact. People like you, who edit the encyclopedia for the sake of politcal correctness, do a disservice to the throngs of information seekers out there. Hiding the fact that Cynthia McKinney is crazy is like claiming the U.S. doesn't have an immigration problem. But you would probably paper that over, too.
You, sir, should get a grip on reality.
Sincerely,
Erik Hansen 68.174.177.20 (talk • contribs)
Mr. Hansen - I have since found a Wikipedia style guide that best describes the problem with the statement you made on Ms. McKinney's article. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Also, may I remind you that personal attacks/flaming has no place in this encyclopedia. By resorting to name-calling and other personal insults against me, you are violating WP policy. Please see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. I am perfectly willing to further discuss how Ms. McKinney's article can be improved, including how best to cite particular viewpoints or add further information if we could keep it in a civil tone. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Removal

AbsolutDan,

I'm working on removing them, but have a question or two -- could you see my talk page?

Thanks, --Qwerpoiu 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Javed Malik

I have no idea what you're talking about. If look at the page history, you'll see that it was an anon that removed the tags. I'm getting tired of being falsely accused of vandalism, so please try to be more careful next time, thanks. —Xezbeth 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan Trying hard to make my phpWebSite edits conform

(I have removed personal details from the post below) --Dan

Hi Dan,

I have added a bunch of info to the phpWebSite page and have used the Wikipedia articles on Joomla! and TikiWiki as a guide. (Both are good articles and useful CMS.)

I am trying to write in a NPOV but am finding some things a bit confusing.

I want to add some of the categories present in TikiWiki and would appreciate your advice.

Thanks Peter

See User_talk:Pspicerwensley#PhpWebSite for a response --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AbsolutDan

Thanks for your speedy reply Dan

Having read your comments I can see that there is definately too much information at present.

The difficulty I am having is writing in an "encyclopedic" style - or should that be wikipedic?

I can see that there is too much information and that excising the third party modules would be a good start.

I think I shall excise the Third Party Modules section and instead say that there are a number of third party modules across the range of component categories and then add a link to the phpWebSite official website information about third party modules then people could find out about them there.

--Pspicerwensley 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cannabis strains linkspammer

209.51.82.222 has returned. I've left him a spam3; as you might have more of the pages he hit on your watchlist, if you see him continuing give me a heads up and i'll block. (thanks, btw, for cleaning up his mess last time.)--Heah? 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello i was not trying to spam. My site is non-profit and has not ads at all. I make no money off it. I saw other similar sites to mine and figured it was ok to add my link, especially after content from my site was put up on wikipedia's list of cannabis strains. I thought that allowed me to put my link up as a reference. As for the other links on other cannabis pages, i see other forums/message board sites doing the same thing and I don't understand what's wrong with it. How can you allow some sites but not others, and some of the ones you allow are PROFIT sites with ads everywhere. MINE HAS NO ADS AND IS NONPROFIT!! i really don't understand your policy about posting links.

For example on the cannabis page of wikipedia there is this link:

  • Strain's Bible - A list about the different cannabis strains that exist, with grower reports and photos

How is that any different than my site? I have a strain guide and photos and grow/smoke reports and message boards just like that site. So whats the difference? Also, we even have a link to wikipedia on our home page!! And on the cannabis strains page there are links just to cannabis forums, not even strain guides, i do not understand this at all. i was not trying to spam, i just thought you were allowed to post relevant links if you weren't a commerical website or profit. i'd understand that i put too many links up but can i at least be able to have a link on the cannabis strains page because my site is extremeley relevant to that, as well as the cannabis page. 209.51.82.222 16:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi I'm a new Wikipedian from Natick... just popped in to say hello to a neighbor: File:Peace Sign 2.svg Merlinus (talk)

  • Hi I Am Marc:

I was recently married to my lovely wife; We have lived together for several years already...

  • We love cats (3 currently own us)... Jeffy(15), Echo(6) & Gizmo(3). All sleep with us in the big bed and no room to move an inch.
  • I was Disabled in a 1993 (Coma)/ and am very slowly recovering. It's tough going out sometimes, though with friends I still do. I have a few supportive friends.
  • I am an "Unenrolled voter." Democrat/ Republicans, I don't care, whoever serves makes my life better in the long run I vote for!
  • Avid reader. Has collection of many hundreds of rare books. Especially Science Fiction and Fantasy.
  • Avid Music collector (2,500 albums).

I am what I am I'm strongly opinionated about disabled peoples' rights and jobs for American citizens who have trouble finding minimum wage jobs in my state today and support Universal health care, I would be dead if I did not have it. I am an idiot about Internet social skills. I hope that the Immigration Reform bill will protect disabled citizens who wish to work like myself first before considering allowing new people to come here. I was searching for an internet forum to be my outlet to express my needs, but found that Wikipedia is not best suited for that. I'm brushing up on Wikipedia's rules of conduct, and slowly starting to begin contributing again. Current book and CD

  • Current Book Jack Whyte: "Uther"
  • Current CD Faves:
    • Warren Zevon... "Life'll Kill Ya"
    • Howlin' Wolf: "Greatest Hits"
  • Latest Flick: "Charles II: The Last King"

File:Peace Sign 2.svg Merlinus (talk)

Hi, you removed the link to the Iowa age of consent article from the Age of consent in North America#Further_reading section. - This link keeps coming back. - I've removed it once or twice from the main AoC page and after it being reposted for the Xth time I moved it to the USA section and added the "it's an opion piece" comment in order to stop the mild edit wars.

Let's see if it comes back. ;) lol --Monotonehell 10:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu / Monte Carlo

YOu GUYS ARE IDIOTS! THATS A MONTE CARLO! Although it is a 4 door it's STILL a MONTE CARLO! LOOK AT IT! find the source! The only SS's they made in that era in an SS type were MANTE CARLO'S AND EL CAMINO'S WIth REgard TO MY 80 MALIBU. AND THAT BROWN ONE IS CLEARLY NOT AN 80! you really need to know your cars and dont threaten to block me! It's a MONTE CARLO!

-ADN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [email protected] (talk • contribs) 30 April 2006.

Hello ADN, I will be the first to admit that I am no car expert. However, the uploader of the image in question seems fairly convinced he took a picture of a Malibu. If you look closely, it is marked "Malibu" between the front driver-side door and the wheel well.
If you're convinced that the image is not a Malibu, the proper thing to do is to either:
  1. Remove the image completely from the Chevrolet Malibu page and explain your reasoning on the article's talk page, or
  2. Explain your reasoning on the article's talk page and let someone else correct the image.
Simply changing the image's caption looks like vandalism. Some of your previous edits have been deemed unhelpful to Wikipedia, so I hope you can understand why your change appeared to be simply vandalism as well.
Now, regardless of fact here, you have engaged in personal attacks on my Talk page. Regardless of whether your statements contain fact, personal attacks of any kind are not permitted at Wikipedia. It is important to remain calm and make constructive comments when engaging in discussion. Consider this your final warning - if you continue in either vandalising pages or engaging in personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting much of the car-related linkspam; keep up the good work! --Alan Au 05:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello Dan

I think some people were a little harsh with you at Wikipedia_Is_Far_Too_Soft_On_Vandals_2. I just wanted to write and give you moral support. If you ever have a vandal problem, or need any other help, feel free to contact me. I can often be found in the Esperanza IRC chatroom. Cheers! --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind letting me know why you removed all the resource links posted from 67.103.169.42. I think the posts were reverted last night around 9pm. The links are not commercial and do not link to a commercial site. The links I've posted send Wikipedia users to the site for one of the most respected not-for-profits in the country, the American Academy of Achievement. The site honors achievers from every corner of the world and features extensive resources. All of them include photo galleries, video interviews, achiever bios and profiles, as well as printed interviews. Each achiever has been inducted into the American Academy of Achievement as a member.

What steps do I need to take so that I can continue with adding resources and not be labelled a "spammer?" Also, how can I go about retrieving the links I've already added? I can contribute to the content if needed. 67.103.169.42 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Achievement

Thank you for your input.

I would welcome the opportunity to add content to each of these sites for achievers.

Is there a possibility of adding a "famous quotes" section to each site, adding quotes featured in Academy of Achievement interviews? How would I do this in a technical sense?

To add a quotes section, would I have to obtain permission from the editor of each site? If so, how do I do this?

Also, by adding content, will I then be able to add the external links to the Academy? Would I have to limit them to just the interview and photo gallery links, or can I still link to the biography and profile pages as well?

I know this is a lot of questions, but I am new to this process and don't want to step on any toes.

The Achievement website is a great resource and would act as a valuable supplemental tool for people wanting to access additional information.

Thanks for your time.

Best,

Sara Berlin451 20:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, thanks for contacting me rather than just deleting links and not saying anything! I just wanted to ask why you removed the seatenthusiasts.co.uk link but didn't remove the seatcupra.net link? They are fairly similar websites, but both with their own unique content

Also the leoncupra.net is a general website that I found, that I know a lot of people find very useful for things about the Leon.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruCido (talk • contribs) 6 May 2006.

You have been nominated

I have nominated you for admin status. Go to the link to accept or decline nomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AbsolutDan Yanksox 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated you since I believe that you can contribute greatly to wikipedia. But if you feel you are not fit, then decline. It's your decision, regardless of what you do, Wikipedia will benefit. I think you would make a great admin, you are thoughtful, precise, and knowledgable. I am tired... Yanksox 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are you storing the nomination away for a later date? Yanksox 00:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's like a pocket veto, it's killed after a week. Yanksox 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I keep getting negative comments on my talk page?

????24.165.116.230 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I absolutely love your offer of help message [1]; I'd never thought of linking someone directly to a new section on my talk and its so much friendlier than typical warning messages :) Does it work often or do you find it gets ignored most of the time? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

take-over-transcription NKT

Your entry at the talk site of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kadampa_Tradition:Take_Over_Transcription

What special you wish to have for a varification? The man who has this tape and did the transcript wrote to me that he has just a limited internet access and asked me to get out what is needed. You can reply at my user page too. Then I try to get the wished verification. Thank your for asking for this verification! --Kt66 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts for Radar detectors and Valentine 1

AD,

You have classified two of the links added today as linkspam.

I don't see it that way. Each link provided unique content rich material that has not been monetized.

What's up with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.169.189.130 (talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.

removed linkin park link page

Wikipedia is not allowing me to register a screen name. It freezes every time i try.

You removed my link to a page that contained a full radio discography of linkin park with samples, complaining that it was a commercial site. Linkin park is a commercial entity. All the other links are commercial. There is nothing for sale at the site I put up. It contains good, scholarly information that is not available in wikipedia. Did you even look at the page linked?

Please put my link back up so linkin park fans like myself can get to it.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 11 May 2006.

:In response to your post on my talk page, I removed the links you added because they were spammed across multiple pages. Wikipedia is in need of more content, not more external links. Please see WP:SPAM for guidelines as to what's considered spam here at Wikipedia. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::I sent you a message to explain why the link I posted was not spam. You completely ignored what I said and responded by removing the other post post I made that same day.

::This seems like vengeance to me. Are you going to continue following me around because I legitimately protested your spam accusations? You don't like to be questioned?

::There is nothing scholarly about vengeance.

::And you were less than honest too. You said I "spammed across multiple pages." I only put up one link. The other link was already there. I edited it. There is nothing "multiple" about that.

::I have been participating in posting on wikipedia, putting up content and providing good links, for well over a year. Do you have my entire history available?

::I see that you have lots of complaints about your overzealous reversions.

::Be more careful. Read the posting and reversion rules please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.

::Also, I complained that I could not get a screen name. You apparently did not consider that issue important enough to bother to offer me any kind of assistance. You did not even acknowledge it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.

:::First of all, and most importantly, all of the complaints about link removal on my talk page are from the users whose links I removed. Of course they're going to be a little upset - it was their edit that I removed. This does not necessarily indicate my removals were in error.

:::Next, I didn't ignore your comments. I take every comment left on my page seriously and try to respond to every comment. I did leave a response on your talk page. For your convenience, I will be combining the entire conversation and posting it both on your talk page and mine.

:::Although technically your IP's history only shows you adding the link to one article, you did make modifications to the same link, and on the same articles, as another account - Tunecaster. See Special:Contributions/69.117.97.9 and Special:Contributions/Tunecaster. Perhaps it's just coincidence, but this looks suspiciously like 69.117.97.9 and Tunecaster are one in the same.

:::Speaking of history, your IP only shows edits from the last few days. When spam-removers such as myself are determining whether to remove links we often check users' history. The fact that your IP only shows a history of adding or making changes to links to one particular website makes your edits look like spamming. If you want your edits to carry more weight, and thus have less of any external links you add being removed, I highly recommend creating an account. By doing so, editors can review your entire history, which can help determine your motivation behind adding a link.

:::Lastly (but also importantly), please sign your comments. It's important to do this so that someone viewing a talk page can determine who made which comment.

:::In closing, I refer you to the following guidelines regarding external links and spamming. Please check them out before adding additional external links, as they discuss the types of links that are appropriate in Wikipedia articles, and also reasons why an editor can appear to be a spammer. :::*WP:EL :::*WP:SPAM :::I'll be posting a follow-up on your talk page regarding your account creation issues --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The contributor took down this section, as it is no longer relevant. Thank you Dan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 22 May 2006.

Note: The contributor originally removed the conversation. I am restoring it, as (from what I recall from guidelines) it's best to keep all conversation records intact. However, I respect the contributor's wishes to strike this conversation, so I have gone through and <s>'d it --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Antislavery Literature Project

AbsolutDan,

You have removed several links to the Antislavery Literature Project from different articles related to slavery, apparently on grounds that these were commercial links.

This is a public education project involving scholars from different universities. It operates from Arizona State University and runs off the Eserver at Iowa State University. Many libraries carry links to this site. The goal of the Project is to provide high-quality, authenticated primary source materials to the interested public, students, and scholars. We share a common goal with Wikipedia of providing good information for educational purposes. In many cases, the Project's digitized texts -- for John Pierpont's poetry, for example, which links you removed -- are unique on the Internet. To remove links deprives Wikipedia readers of access to primary source materials that explicate or expand on the article they have read.

With this explanation, it would be appreciated if you restored the links you removed.

Thank you,

Joe Lockard English Department Arizona State University —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlockard (talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.

Dear AbsolutDan,
You responded as follows:
Dear Jlockard,
On nearly any notable topic one could find a wealth of other websites containing more information than the corresponding Wikipedia article; however we much endeavor to keep the articles' external links section down to a bare minimum. To this effect, myself and other volunteers must regularly traverse many articles and prune links.
One the primary methods used to determine whether a link should stay or go is the method in which it was added to the article(s). In this case (as I mentioned above) the links to the Antislavery Literature Project were added "bare" (with no additional content added to the article) across a multitude of pages. This raises a major red flag; had it not been me that reverted the changes, someone else likely would have.
Wikipedia needs more content, not more external links. The best way to incorporate a link that points to an external website into an article is to contribute cited text - add information to the article that can be learned from the link in question and then cite it per normal guidelines. This is the happy medium that we strive for. You may also wish to consider adding the link to a smaller number of articles - preferrably one main article on the topic.
I hope this helps to explain the reason these links were removed. In closing, I refer you to the following guidelines regarding external links:
  • WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer information regarding link spamming (in particular, see point number 2 in this guideline)
  • WP:EL External Links guidelines
  • WP:CITE Wikipedia citation guidelines
The addition of links was entirely consistent with the External Links guidelines, particularly section 5. Together with Documenting the American South, located at the University of North Carolina and often provided as a Wikipedia reference link, the Antislavery Literature Project is a major online resource for the literatures of slavery. It provides accurate and authoritative texts that directly relate to the article subject. Eliminating such links does active disservice to Wikipedia readers.
In eliminating the links to John Pierpont's poetry, you apparently failed to notice that I contributed the entire content of the article, one that had previously been a brief stub. Advice to contribute content to Wikipedia would seem gratuitous.


Joe Lockard
English Department
Arizona State University —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlockard (talk • contribs) 11 May 2006.
AbsolutDan,
I have restored some of the links to slavery-related articles that you deleted. All of these links are in conformity with published Wikipedia policy on external links. To ensure that their contribution to the article is beyond question, in a couple cases sentences have been added to the text to explicate their meaning for general readers without specialized subject knowledge (see Black Canadians, William Still articles). Other links (e.g. the Henderson, Kentucky article) will be restored as time permits. Wikipedia readers from Henderson have a reasonable right to access electronic resources that inform them that their small town too has a literary history. Still other links will be made (e.g. to the Noah Porter article) as the Project publishes new texts and sees opportunities to contribute to Wikipedia's work.
A larger question lies in discrimination between educational electronic resources. Your edits removed links to Antislavery Literature Project materials, for example, even while leaving links in the same article to Project Gutenberg materials. Due to the focus of our digitization work the Project actually has better collections than Gutenberg in this specialized area. It does not appear to make solid editorial sense to eliminate the better source while keeping the lesser one, only because the latter is better-known.
Thank you for the invitation to contribute further content to Wikipedia. As time and the opportunities of work coincidence permit, we shall.
Joe Lockard
English Department
Arizona State University —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlockard (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.
Note: as this discussion is becoming increasingly circular, I am disengaging. I'm still concerned that, since Mr. Lockard has a vested interest in his project, he will add more links than is necessary for the betterment of Wikipedia. However, since his project is academic in nature, I don't feel his additions are outright harming WP. I'll leave it up to future editors to determine the value of the links he adds on an article-by-article basis. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. time to block 72.24.69.21

You warned him the 4th time on May 5, and he vandalized again May 11. He may not read his own Talk page, but he'll sure get the message when he finds his IP won't Wiki.Sbharris 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLPES

AbsolutDan: I have restored, temporarily, the content on the talk page, and added the following note so that members of our group would know what is going on:

NOTE: We would like to leave this content up until the end of the month. I do not disagree with AbsolutDan's comments that all of you can see. I could argue that the betterment of the group is discussing the value of NLPES as described in the WikiPedia article, however, that is nitpicking. We are looking into alternatives. Ken Levine, Texas Klevine 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Klevine 23:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NLPES"

This page was last modified 04:49, 23 April 2006. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klevine (talk • contribs) 11 May 2006.

Vandalism

No problem at all. IrishGuy 00:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Miller

Dan, I noticed you reverted an external link from the Hugh Miller page which had been placed 07:20, 10 May 2006 by 82.28.33.196

I've looked at the externally linked website (http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cmc_hugh_miller.htm) and it appears to be a reasonably well-presented biography of Hugh Miller, and a useful addition to the page. So I've undone your reversion - hope you don't mind.

However, I have noticed that this unregistered user seems to have put about ten links from various places in Wikipedia to other pages on the same website - is this why you removed it? If so, please accept my apologies - I have no strong feelings about this particular link, so we can remove it if you like... Euchiasmus 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did remove the external link in the Hugh Miller article (and in the many other articles to which it was added) because it was spammed. When I go on a link-removing spree, my intentions are only to remove links that are added in violation of the guidelines in WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. My task is complete once the linkspam is removed. If future editors later determine a link to be useful to a particular article, then it's no longer spam and I welcome them to re-add it. Thus, I have no problem at all with the fact that you re-added it to Hugh Miller because (unlike the spammer) you:
  1. Appear to contribute more than just external links (i.e. you're not here solely to promote a site or sites by spamming)
  2. Took the time to explain the value of the external link in relation to the article rather than just adding the link "silently"
  3. Only added the same link to one article that you felt it was relevant to.
I recommend taking only one further step: you might want to add the same explanation you left on my talk page to the talk page of the Hugh Miller article (Talk:Hugh Miller). This way other future spam-removers will see that there has been some intelligent dicussion about the link and that it shouldn't be automatically re-removed. Cheers! --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done that. And thanks for the explanation... Euchiasmus 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Massey website

Our members report that you've applied a global 'delete' to the various external links to the Gerald Massey website that we have added to various Wikipedia pages in an effort to enhance the often 'skeletal' information that they currently provide.

For example, the Wikipedia entry for the minor Victorian poet, Adelaide Anne Procter, contains little about her life and no examples of her verse. The link to the Gerald Massey site (now deleted) led a comprehensive biography and to all her published verse - and the same applies to about a dozen similar poets of that age that you catalogue on Wikipedia. (I notice that you recently posted correspondence on this page to this effect from someone else regarding your deletion of the external link we had posted to the entry on our site for the Scots poet/writer, Hugh Miller).

I really think that before you an delete external link, you ought to take a look at what lies at the end of it and assess how that material adds useful information to what your excellent facility already provides. And while you might disagree, I do not regard anything offered on my Society's site - to be taken or left as the visitor sees fit - as SPAM, as your notice to my IP address suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.33.196 (talk) 13 May 2006

In response to your message on my Talk page, I removed the links you added to the www.gerald-massey.org.uk website because they were added "bare". Please consider adding content instead of just links. If you add content that gerald-massey.org.uk can be a source for, then add the link as a citation. Please refer to WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer, particularly points 1 and 2. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Knight

hi absolutdan!

thanks for informing me. i didn´t think i was adding commercial information to that page; rather giving people a chance where to *see* more information about that guy. i have no affiliation with the website i linked to whatsoever, except that i read it regularly. i´ll get more informed about wikifying now. regards, faleRA

Phil Knight v Michael Moore

hi dan, its me again. just wanted to point out to you that i added the same link, along with info on his appearance in the very same documentation movie, on the page on michael moore. does that make it commercial info too? best, FaleRa

Please don't micro-manage!

If an external link is for a neologism, then as you know it cannot be added to Wiki. Therefore it must be added as an external link. --panem

The link I removed was to a personal website, which (as you mention above) contains original research. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, whether it be in the article content or external links. If we started adding links to all the political theories and such we'd quickly have a bottom-heavy article --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reminders are not to bother frequent contributors, but to inform new(er) users who are unaware of the subst: tag. I only remind users once about subst:ing. Thank you for your note at my talk page, and if you have any further comments, please take them to my talk page. Happy editing! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flehmen response

Hello,

The link i have been removing breaks the Wiki rule that states sites thats primary purpose is to sell goods or services whitch the site clearly is even if it has content about flehmen response please read the rules before changing my edits.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogtoyco (talk • contribs) 19 May 2006.

The link in question wasn't quite so cut-and-dry. The link was a citation, not just a normal external link. The page it linked to does provide information relevent to the topic. It was also unclear to me at first whether or not the site's primary purpose is to sell products. Upon further review by another editor and myself, we have determined that your removal was correct. Please understand that based on your recent activities, your motives in removing the link were questionable -- it appeared like you were removing the link in order to try to make a point. In the future, when making edits that may be deemed controversial, it's a good idea to make note of your change on the article's talk page, giving a more extensive reasoning for your change. That way there's no question about your motive for said edit. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how you figure that the link to holdergals.net on the Cigarette holder article is a good link? It appears to be a fairly newly launched site with hardly any content at all... --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellow Wikiholic Dan! The reason I put it back is, aside from the fact that it was poorly added the first time, it is an attempt at community for those interested. If there is a better link to a related forum, please change it to that. :) I'm just trying to encourage connection for those of similar interest, and the link itself was not as bad as how it was put on there. Chris 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Shopping

Yes, you are right. It may have been unnecessary. My point was to stop people paying for readily available info, as for previous paragraph in the article. Regards, Asterion talk to me 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's great. I suppose I let myself follow the style of the previous paragraph. I am quite happy with your last edit. Cheers, Asterion talk to me 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea indeed!Asterion talk to me 16:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Site www.cigarettespedia.com

The site www.cigarettespedia.com is not a commercial one. We haven’t placed any advertisements inside of it. It is clearly stated on our site that we are not for or against cigarettes. The only thing we did and do is presenting a huge collection (more than 20 000) of cigarettes packs of different brands and countries that anyone can take a look at.

Our resource is absolutely for free!!! We use open source PHPWiky. Each user can visit this site and edit a page. The site www.cigarettespedia.com is similar to www.wikipedia.org by structure.

It is not clear why you remove links from articles containing descriptions of cigarettes brands from the site www.wikipedia.org? For instance: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regal_%28cigarette%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_%28cigarette%29, ... I think that if a user visits the site in order to read for example about Regal cigarettes, he will be also interested in knowing how these cigarettes look like, what brands are manufactured in different countries. He won’t find such kind of information in the Internet. The information provided on our site is unique from this point of view!

And in regard to the links from the pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cigarette ссылки, the site Cigarettespedia.com is a lot more informative than for instance the site: http://www.sickofsmoke.com.

And it is also incomprehensible why there are links on 2 sites that have the same contents and are cross-linked: http://www.globalink.org/ http://www.tobaccopedia.org/ that in essence represent the same organization.

This project was launched a month ago; we have been working on improving its content incessantly. Would you be so kind to explain us on what basis you remove links from the informative site www.cigarettespedia.com? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tutonhamon2006 (talk • contribs) 22 May 2006.

BARNSTAR!

A Barnstar!
The Original Barnstar
You have done such an amazing job, and seem to go under the radar. Awesome work! Yanksox 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie

I try to give praise where it deserves, people are to caught up in anger over here. We need to all be calm. Seriously, you just do such a great job under the layers. Yanksox 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Edit to BMW page

I added unitedbimmer.com to the Community Page next to bimmerforums.com. Bimmerforums.com and unitedbimmer.com serve the same purpose and do the same thing, however unitedbimmer.com does it in a much move civalized manner. Thus I do not understand how bimmerforums, and all the other forums listed under community can stay, and unitedbimmer.com must be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.150.109.46 (talk • contribs) 23 May 2006.

Please explain

I received a "warning" from you related to the Charles Paddock Zoo. This is my office computer, and very few people have access to it. I would be curious to know if it's possible to find out what time an illegal edit was made, so that I can figure out at whom I should yell! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.62.24.7 (talk • contribs) 24 May 2006.

Nazi Coke

Well, I'm surprised at the efficiency of Wikipedia to respond to vadalizing. Anyway, you're right. Even though Fanta has been called "Nazi Coke," it is a tid bit too non-NPOV for inclusion in the article. I apologize.

I wasn't really trying to vandalize, I'm not that sort of person. If you check my edit history (my user name is atomsprengja, if I didn't log in, it was because I'm lazy and not because I wanted to hide) you'll see I do rather mild edits (dialects of Totonac, for example).

However, you really need to get the Fanta article looked at. "Shipping problems"? How odd. Although I'm certain a picture of der Führer drinkind das Coke would not have gone over well.

Also, is there any way to standardize the Arabic transliterations used here? Do people realize that the letter "o," as in Osama does not exist in Arabic? And he's not the son of Laden, but son of Muhammad, who was in turn the son of Ladin. Not to say I agree with al-Qa'ida. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.161.241 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.

I noticed that you removed a link that I recently added to Roller Coaster. I don't know who is right, but I did not intend this to be spam and I will not try and re-add it. I understand that Wikipedia is not a link farm but I figured that it would be useful for the users of Wikipedia as a "Site with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.". WillMcC 10:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my site removed while another remains

Can you please explain why my site link, http://www.mustangevolution.com/saleen-mustang/, was removed for being commercial yet this site link, http://www.moddedmustangs.com/2006-ford-mustang-saleen-s281.html, remains listed?

Thank you.

BamaStangGuy 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County Kerry

I see you had spotted User talk:martinogrady. Sorry for getting in the way!! Nelson50 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the roller coaster page and the "spam link" that you just took out actually looked like a very informative page with an excellent diagram. The website was not selling anything. I would suggest that it be put back --R'nway 00:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. BTW, I looked at his edit history and I see what you mean. --R'nway 02:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for reverting vandalism to my user page. Cheers. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Jeffrey Abbott/Jeff Abbott

If there is something not correct in the text formatting feel free to correct it. I am REALLY a novice when it comes to this. If you are challenging the authenticity of my comments in regards to “KEYBOARD” magazine I suggest you view my website, there you shall see a quote from the editor of the magazine. I do appreciate your efforts to keep it honest. You can also contact me at [removed personal e-mail address -AbsolutDan]

Jeff www.jeffreyabbott.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.100.96 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it will not allow me, please delete my entire page.
I will have someone else rescribe it at a later date.
Thanks,
jeff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.100.96 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

jeff abbott

Thanks for deleting. Yes, i am jeff. I shall have this addressed by someone who can get the information formated correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.100.96 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, AbsolutDan! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. ☆TBC☆ 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why do u care so much

Why does it bother you so much that a hometown hero can not be on a wikkipedia page? Who do you think you are? Who and where do get authority over other people? Why do you get to make the rules here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.235.138 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

link removal on page DOEACC

sir,

i am myself a DOEACC student and i am working for DOEACC Society. I with some other DOEACC students are making an Non-profit website for other students. this is not a commercial or private websites, all our services for students are free and we dont support adds.

www.doeacc.net contains 5 forums in which students can post there messages for any help on any subject or on anything related with DOEACC. doeacc.net also provides services for there project, students can make there project and can upload in this website for us to host there project.

please mail me at (e-mail address removed -AbsolutDan) if you still think that this link should not be included at DOEACC page.

jai (admin of doeacc.net) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.211.162.138 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Cigarettes

Hi, I'm Craftni. I registered an external link on cigarette subject yesterday (http://www.cigarettespedia.com/) and it was deleted as spam. WHY??? The web-site I recommended is a very good one and much more appropriate to the topic then many others mentioned there. Your reply would be truly appreciated. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craftni (talk • contribs) 11:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan,
I asked on cigarettes "user talk" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cigarette#SEEKING_FOR_ADVISE)if anyone has anything against the placement of cigarretespedia link on Cigarette topic. As far as there are only positive comments, I really don't see why it would be considered a spam. So, if you don't mind, I am going to place the link shortly.
Thanks. Craftni 11:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel,why did you remove link to super cars site on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar ? Best Regards Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rev22 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

MatthewH user page

Sorry, that was me edeting my own user page, (that I.P is my IP i must of logged out when i clicked back. Sorry for any trouble i may have caused you. but its nice to know we have RC patrols looking out for us, so thank you as well :D Matthew 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITSM revert

I appreciate that this probably was done because it was a pointer to a commercial provider. However I have mixed feelings about this because so much of this domain has been created and continues to be defined by vendors. At the least, I wouldn't characterize it as vandalism. Can you help me understand the operant Wikipedia policies? Charles T. Betz 04:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating site

Dear AbsolutDan!

I've added noncommercial dating reviews site to the article. As noncommercial as sites on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film. For example: 

 AURUM3 Movies (http://movies.aurum3.com/)
 Ain't It Cool News (http://www.aintitcool.com/)

But I don't want to make bad to somebody, I've just proposed realy good site with much information about dating and advices. So I will be very glad if you'll change your mind about this update to the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Svaryk (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cigarette article

The link that was added to the cigarette page, www.whyquit.com has perhaps THE most effective information on in for people that would like to quit smoking. There is so much false info out there, such as on the official link, www.sickofsmoke.com on the wikipedia page, about picking a date to quit smoking for example. Most people that quit, and stay smoke free, quit randomly, not with a pick date.

Take some time to read a little on the link that you removed, and you will understand better. It is not my site, either, just a good site to learn the truth from.

www.whyquit.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.1.74.240 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!

Wow, I just noticed your revision on my userpage. Thanks, I owe you on that one. Yanksox 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it advertising? Please explain why a link to the Coca Cola video is advertising? It is relevant content for the articles. It's a part of their brand. Is it not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.186.108 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the video the content? I don't get it. I thought this was supposed to be a compilation of relevant information. I don't make the rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.186.108 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that this link (and a couple of other links from related topics) to this specialist GNU educational content source is of relevant interest to many of the readers interest in the topics, and it is not a promotion of a commercial site. If you look at the destination you will see that it is a pro bono site containing a massive amount of open source technical content for use with e-learning/distance education/LMS/VLE etc. One of the biggest problems educators have with the whole idea of e-learning is the shortage of shareable content, and this pointer to an open content source is useful and encouraging. Most of the GNU content has been contributed privately, but some of it has been derived with acknowledgements from Wikipedia itself, so your decision that to link to it is inappropriate is surprising.

Peter Bull

PS. I forgot to sign in first. I have now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterbdvp (talk • contribs) 01:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance tag removal

In the spirit of civility, first of all, there is no such thing as "required" changes on Wikipedia. Secondly, Wikipedia policy is to not use citation in the scientific sense. It's an encyclopedia - that's all. Lastly, no need to raise the vandalism issue (that was way out of line). I noticed that in the past you're quick to call other people "vandals" or "spammers." You need to stop this now.

Replying to "Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an page, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dilettante99 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to start?

There's so many things wrong with your positions that I don't even know where to start. I don't agree with your "work model" in the encyclopedia. We don't need self-appointed "super-editors." Why don't you just focus on a few topics that you know something about, and leave the rest to the other experts. Also, it's ridiculous to think that every topic is going to be a fully-cited scientific monograph. I'll say it again - it's an encyclopedia. Few cites - and they better be good ones (like to a monograph or review article). Lastly, don't hide behind some standard message/template, when you call someone a vandal or spammer - libel is libel is libel.
Replying to:
The original message I left on your talk page ([1]) is not my own wording. It is a standard Wikipedia template that is recommended for placing on a user's talk page who has removed maintenance tags. The template is ... . While it may not be "honey and flowers", it is cordial and is intended to convey the importance of maintenance tags. If you disagree with the need for a particular maintenance tag, it is important to either do the requested work or discuss it on the article's talk page. Simply removing the tag can and often is interpretted as vandalism. I don't make up these rules, I just help to convey them. Regarding citing, it actually is Wikipedia policy that information in articles should be cited. See WP:CITE for guidelines regarding citing. As for my other edits, a number of the messages I leave on users' talk pages are templates like the above. Check out Template:TestTemplates for a complete list of the templates I use. Again, I don't write them, I just use them. Yes I do at times refer to some as spammers or vandals. If I were to rob a convenience store, I would be labeled a thief. Likewise, if someone spams or vandalizes, they will be referred to as a spammer or vandal. It's a label given based on behavior. I believe I'm fairly careful about labeling though - if a person inserts only one spam link, I may still leave a template message, but I won't necessarily refer to them as a spammer. In your case, the only edit of yours I questioned was the template removal, so I don't consider you a vandal and never referred to you as such. Please understand that the work I do here is primarily fighting vandalism and removing spam; as such it may seem like all I do is warn. If you pick through my edits though you'll notice that if anyone replies to my messages in a civil manner I do take the time to reply in kind. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns about either my edits or Wikipedia in general. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dilettante99 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree to Disagree

Let's just agree to disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dilettante99 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I quite understand. I was just experimenting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.59.211 (talk • contribs) 4:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

BU Bridge

Unless downtown Portland is a no-fly zone, wouldn't the Steel Bridge qualify? --SPUI (T - C) 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching this. [2]. --mtz206 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that adding the oldest non-commercial history page concerning the context of Andrew Jackson's period of power -- WWW-VL: US History: Age of Jackson -- is "adding commercial or private" sites? I work with the Virtual Library, and all sites are completely non-commercial and have been developed by leading historians. Why should this be removed? Please contact Ray Trygstad at wikipedia for my bona fidas. Best, George www.vlib.us/glaughead.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.102.23 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

I appreciate your vigilance in keeping Wikipedia free of useless and irrelevant knowledge. I understand that Wikipedia is a community effort and it is wonderful that people like yourself have the dedication to create this invaluable resource. As a personal acquaintance of Jimmy Wales, I fully support the goals and mission of Wikipedia, and would do nothing intentionally to derail that effort nor to breach Wikipedia's policies.

With that in mind, I am hoping you can elaborate on why you deleted my link to the borassus palm photo and information page on the Jungle Photos website. The photo page contains a picture and an internal link to additional natural history information. I am sure that this photo and information would be useful to students, teachers and travellers who wanted to know more about this fascinating tree.

For me, the point is that I spent thousands of dollars getting this and other photos and spent several years in school obtaining advanced degrees in biology that enable me to bring a certain expertise to the subject matter. I am just not prepared to put this work out there in the public domain where it can be freely copied without acknowledgment of any kind. I guess I am just not that altruistic.

I am not entirely selfish, either. Over the years, I have made corrections to Wikipedia articles where I see mistakes, and added paragraphs here and there where I have noted omissions. But I do not want to put my entire intellectual and artistic effort into Wikipedia. Hence, I created Jungle Photos. Maybe one day, I'll hand over everything in Jungle Photos to Wikipedia (Jimmy and I talked about this) but right now I want some recognition for my efforts. By removing the link you are depriving Wikipedia visitors of the very thing they seek, which is free information (albeit on my page it is not copyright free). It would seem a shame that a website such as mine with its rich variety of subject matter, photos and high quality content should be denied to the very people you so diligently serve: the Wikipedia visitor.

I have just begun a wiki project on my own website, Jungle Wiki, and once I receive contributions, I will be happy to share those with Wikipedia.

With that in mind, I would appreciate a detailed consideration of your thinking on this subject.

Regards,

Roger Harris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.87.174.156 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

Tim LaHaye

Please tell me how his belief in the so-called end of days is NOT a suicidal fantasy. Please tell me how his belief in the illuminati is NOT a delusion. How is it "vandalism" to tell the truth about someone's false beliefs? --24.199.67.217 07:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Jenkins

The WIKIPEDIA definition of "hack writer" is someone who is paid to write about the thoughts and opinions of others. Isn't that EXACTLY what Jenkins does? --24.199.67.217 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yari Road

There's not enough encyclopedic content there to tell if it is actually "notable", but a Google search seems to indicate that it is. --SPUI (T - C) 00:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Absolut

So how do I add new content to wikipedia? Seems my other contributions have all been eliminated.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emulsionla (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken Standfield

Hi Dan, please take a look at the entry I made on the Spam page. I feel this is one for you.

On a separate note, when I saw the question from Roger Harris above, I just knew the answer on his talk page would be good. I was not disappointed! Thanks and regards Nelson50 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan, please do not remove links to my Game resource sites. The pictures contained within the gallery and the content on the site such as lyrics are beneficial to users interested in the Game and this is not advertising but serving the purpose of leading users to other resources where they can find more information along with other content that would not be presented in Wikipedia.

It's frustrating having to undo changes when I check to see the links once again removed.

Cheers, Tony —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.48.88 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken and Intangibles

Hey Dan -- do you want to list *all* of the Ken Intangibles articles? The whole thing seems like a massive spam game to me, and it really is nonsense (that "institute" is a page full of google ads.) Sdedeo (tips) 02:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan

Wether or not you agree that my links are useful, does not mean I am breaking wiki rules. Please leave editing of Hip Hop pages to those who have the knowledge to make judgement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.51.186 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AIMC

I am sorry. I was not aware that not-for-profit associations should not list. There are a number of consulting organizations listed in a wide are of consulting topics.

The AIMC is an information and resource network, just like a publication, or any other professional association. We do not sell products or services. At most, we charge a nominal membership fee, but information and professional resources are available, either through the membership section or upon request.

If it is possible to list our association, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you,

Neal Braver —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbraver100 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Is wikipedia a souce for hagiography or real information? If I read an article about a controversial public figure that has NO critical remarks, I find that biased. And you bet I'm going to add some criticism for balance. Stop deleting my contributions, especially if I have footnotes that back me up. --24.199.67.217 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dan1679&oldid=58690556"