User talk:SiobhanHansa
Please leave messages for me at the bottom of this page, and sign your post using four tildes (~~~~).
I move messages to the archive when there appears to be no more movement on a discussion and I'm bored enough to clean up this page. If I've archived too hastily, feel free to move an item back to this page, or just pickup here without the context.
Well what I put on Edmund's page was more accurate than what he was having on it. However since I didn't have sources then it only made my statements about him have the same amount of truthfulness to them as his. I am simply trying to ensure that moderators and such are aware of him being a problem and trying to poison sites with him pretending to be a TV star (how can someone be a TV star when their claim to fame is being in a tv program when they were 5?). This is the last i will speak of him on here unless he returns.Truesora 13:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ext Lnks
RE: Wikipedia:External links, what about GROUPS, like groups.yahoo.com? WikiDon 17:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, specifically, in this article VM Motori, user Sam Webster added this: "*[1] Discussion group all about VM diesel engines. A resource of otherwise difficult to find information." on 09:20, 26 September 2007
- So, should GROUPS, like groups.yahoo.com be in External links? If you look at Wikipedia:External links, it goes not say, I thought you would be able to figure that out. Thanks WikiDon 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I thought so, but since it did not say GROUPS, I think it should say Forums (aka GROUPS) just to be explicit. WikiDon 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the other two external links from Wedding Invitation as I found it very frustrating that the link I placed couldn't be posted while the other two sites were no different than the one I posted.{Kappa65 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)}
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
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. R Delivery Bot 02:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Gurbaksh Chahal
Thanks for catching some of the Gurbaksh Chahal edits. I think he or his company is doing CoI edits, and using several anonymous accounts as well as Wsjreporter2007. Do you have ways to prove/show this? Paxsimius 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on this as well. Paxsimius 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Eileen Koch & Company, publicist for Gurbaksh Chahal, all public domain pictures on the Internet are free to use within Wikipedia. Please refrain from removing the picture.
NITYA SEVA
It is not o.k that you delete the listing of NITYA SEVA and call it spam. This association looks for needies in Bhopal and has two childrens homes. It finds extensive acceptance. It is an affront in view of the efforts given to the street children. They have not deserved it. Do you know Bhopal? Do you know the situation of street children? Do you serve? NITYASEVA 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
marriage and dictionaries- sorry
Thanks for pointing out the woeful inadequacy of my dictionary practices. Sorry if it makes me look like a jerk. For what it's worth, the definitions I looked at were from doing a | Google definition search and looking at Wikipedia's jurisdiction entry (not Wiktionary's). I'll get up and go to the bookshelf before commenting next time. WotherspoonSmith 12:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
you said I spam
hey... can you tell me why did you consider my links to pickup-ebook-review.com a spam? I think it's really related to those pages ... maybe is it because I couldn't get the number references correctly? Thank you BrbbX 14:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
about social entrepreneurship
Hey. thanks dude, no problem at all. I just wanted to add more definitions. Can you put some topic where ppl can add more and more definitions.
cyborg 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cyborg 01:06 Oct 02 2007 (IST)
Question about Removal of External Link
Hi, I noticed that you removed the link to a Google Maps mashup I created showing popular baby names. I added to the link to List_of_most_popular_given_names. Thanks for bringing the guidelines to my attention. After reading them, the only item I seem to have violated was the prohibition against "Advertising and conflicts of interest". Please let me know if you feel I violated other guidelines. On a side note, does that mean if someone other than myself (even a friend) submitted the link, it would be acceptable? I'm just trying to figure out the rules here...
I suppose my argument for inclusion of the link is the same reason as why I built it in the first place. Existing sites (including Wikipedia) do a great job of showing popular baby names in for a single region (or a few names from many regions) in boring old HTML tables. The benefit of a Maps mashup like mine is that the data is presented in a much more accessible fashion. For example, a search of a baby's name immediately shows where it is popular.
Anyhow, I apologize if I broke some rules here at Wikipedia. I won't edit again. I look forward to reading your response so that I can better understand how Wikipedia is governed. Thanks much, Guy davis1 02:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Sorry, didn't mean to be a bad user
Sorry you felt the need to remove our suggestions of further reading that are relevant to the topics. We certainly don't advocate spam and will add no more. Charlesbridge 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
think I got it
You removed an entry I had made on the TRS page. I put the entry back in, but removed the external link. I understand the disabiguation part now. Also, you rearranged info I had put on the Volunteer page. I do a lot of volunteering and may have more to contribute to that page, but I think your editing on that page is better than the way I had it. Formeleins 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)formeleins
Wait. Stop the presses. I just checked back on the TRS page and the entry I put in is gone again and I had a message that said I was advertising. What? I'm simply telling about something I know of used a lot in the sporting and volunteer world called TRS. I'm not selling anything. The info I put in is no more a sales pitch than any other listings on the page. Maybe I don't get it after all. I was trying to contribute something, but I just wasted a lot of time.Formeleins 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your comments there. I've been trying to turn debate in the direction of whether the link is worthy of inclusion under WP:EL (sock accusations aside), but User:MarnetteD seemed only interested in accusing Scrooby of abusing sockpuppets (although he refused to take such accusations to WP:SSP). Now he's put up a notice at WP:ANI, which I consider totally unecessary. I am so very grateful to have somebody actually treat a content dispute as a content dispute. Thank you. Sarcasticidealist 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I too thank you for your comments. I feel that you may have been following some of this so you are probably aware that I did file a WP:SSP and had told Sarcasticidealist that I was going to do so when I had time. He is aware of this and has acknowledged it on my talk page. The case was considered proven. My filing at WP:ANI caused editor EdJohnston to look into the EWS link and he agreed with you. I am not posting this to cause any friction. Sarcasticidealist and I have communicated quite a bit about this as legal threats were made against both of us. I just wanted to bring you up to date and to apologize for not thanking you sooner. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Street Children Link
Would this be an acceptable link for the Street Children section - http://www.childrenwalkingtall.com/Street-Children-India.htm - I had originally gave the homepage which you removed... Thanks poipleshadow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.24.249 (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to tell us much that is encyclopedic about street children that isn't already covered in the article. So I don't see the point in having it there. -- SiobhanHansa 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Mystery Method
Please confine comments about articles to the article talk pages, to avoid fragmenting discussion. Thanks! --Ryan Delaney talk 21:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
question
I would like to know why you feel so strongly that the sex abuse cases in American Public Schools pages should be deleted? Do you think that compiling a complimentary listing of these issues will harm people? If you do, please consider proposing for deletion the same wikipages for the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases. I do not see the difference between what has been created for the Catholic Church and what Student7 is trying to create for the Public Schools. They are exactly the same thing but different institutions. All have major news coverage and reliable third party references. All name specific people who have been accused. I ask you to be unbiased in your application of Wikipolicy with regard to these pages. I would have more respect for your opinion of Public Schools if I saw that you had nominated for deletion the Catholic Church pages.NancyHeise 02:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to be consistent. I did not see how eliminating an article that many people have obviously spent a lot of time creating was for me to do. Likewise, I did not see how the issue in the Catholic Church could be so relevent and important as to need its own wikipage and not be relevant and important for Public Schools to have the same wikipage if they have the same problem. I have not nominated any pages for deletion. I have just been contributing to pages already created. I was just wondering how you and the rest of those who want to delete Public Schools could justify not working on AfDs for Catholic Church but be all over the Public Schools page. It doesn't look right to me.NancyHeise 02:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- You brought up good points in your arguments. I did go and look at the Wikipedia policies you highlighted and read them. I would like to ask you to go to these two articles(listed at the bottom here) and see if you think these should be nominated for AfD after applying the same logic as you did to the Public Schools pages. If you think they should be deleted, I ask you to nominate them. If I were to do so, it would not be as a disinterested party since I am a Catholic and am part of Wikipedia Catholicism project. It just seems to me to be incomplete for an encyclopedia to have a huge page for Catholic Church offenses and nothing for the equally great Public Schools offenses. Either tell the whole truth and not just one side of the story or dont tell the story. Right now, Public Schools has a page on Sexual harassment in education which is an equal to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases both are good articles and neither article is a list. But right now, two articles that are lists should be nominated for deletion if we are going to delete the same articles for Public Schools and those are: and . NancyHeise 03:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyright and DarwinAwards.com Images
Hmmm, I know so little about copyright law, thanks for alerting me to potential problems involving copyright. I'll go make some changes; what changes, I'm not yet sure. How do I let Wikipedia use images, without copyleft or so forth? I want the images to be used on Wikipedia!!!
Wendy Wendy 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Limited Liability Company
Hi, I saw what you wrote about my posting an external link to http://www.wiredtape.com/wiki/Limited_Liability_Company/us . I just wanted to know why you consider this spam? It has a lot of information regarding LLC's... ? It is true that I wrote the article there, however, this does not mean that it isn't relevant material?
Thank you :) Bfhappy 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
SiobhanHansa, I appreciate your comments and also your drawing my attention to the guidelines of which I was not aware. Thank you Bfhappy 21:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
PVD Coatings
Hi, I apologise if I've broken wiki rules regarding external links and different usernames. It was nothing sinister I just forgot what my username was and created another. I didn't realise about the sock puppet rule. I've replied to your spam discussion with more detail. I think the PVD coatings page needs a reference as the other links are to companies rather than information sources so it would be good if you could restore the PVD coatingslink. However if it conflicts with the guideines no worries. Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.207.208 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have added some PVD coating references to the PVD coatings home page. Does that make it comply with the wikipedia guidelines?
- It might make editors of the articles more likely to think it an appropriate external link. For the most part, if being used as a source we would expect the sources you are using on the PVD coating website directly instead. -- SiobhanHansa 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the reply. I'll try and update the page some time in the future and quote the references directly if I've got time. Are the other links on the page ok by the way as they just seem to be links to companies? I'll try and login under a username as well next time to stop this IP jumping :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.168.41 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the links are just to commercial suppliers home pages they probably aren't appropriate; if they go to an informative page on the suppliers site they may be good. I was following your additions after noticing them on one particular page I watch, I haven't looked closely at all the links on all the pages I removed yours from. On the account/IP side - it's not obligatory to edit from a user account, but it makes conversations and collaboration easier. Your use of IPs and multiple accounts certainly made me more suspicious but your reasons are not nefarious, and I need to assume good faith and not let myself get too jaded to appreciate the diversity of people's situations. -- SiobhanHansa 19:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Beyond Iowa!
Thank you for pointing out the BLP problems with the Sex abuse - Iowa school article. I finally understood what you were saying. Sorry it took so long. Best of all, I feel a lot better about anonymizing the articles. That had been bothering me for some time.
I have another question if you have the time. The actual specifics may not be important since the article itself may be huffed shortly (!), but it might help my education. In the article Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Texas), there is a section that has very explicit details starting with "14 year old girl." It is not pretty. The actual disposition of the material is not terrible relevant. I would be interested rather in your thinking behind it. I kept the details, not for prurience sake, but to allow readers to realize what a witness had to go through to prove a case. The defendant, of course, was hoping she'd flinch and not be able to go through with it. Every parent's nightmare. I've run across many cases that got dropped because the parents didn't want to put their kid through that. Anyway, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Student7 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
elsevier
I know these guys--been fighting with them for years and years. I'm following up. See any more, just let me know.DGG (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Cphillips
I apologize if I have broken wikipedia's rules on posting external links. I felt that the links I submitted added an additional resource for people who are using Wikipedia to find information. Could you please provide some tips on ways I can add links without breaking the rules?
-Thanks for your response, I will do what I can to try to adhere to the rules and regulations.
Thanks Cphillips 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain why links like: "Urban Dictionary definition of Beirut/Beer Pong" are accepted and not removed from the "beer pong" page, but my link is instantly removed?
Thanks Cphillips 15:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You stated: "Please stop focusing on the fact that your links have been removed. If you are not here to write a neutral encyclopedia regardless of its impact on your own website, stop editing and go and do something else. -- SiobhanHansa 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)"
I just wanted to let you know I have added neutral information in the past and it has been pulled as well (not blaming you at all) just saying it is frustrating to put time and effort in to contribute to wikipedia to enhance general knowledge and my efforts are erased, while other sites are able to spam and get free traffic to their sites. I apologize for reacting a bit harsh, I am just frustrated and I am trying to do the right thing. I admit I have made some mistakes in the past, but I hope you and the wikipedia community will not hold it against me or the website I work for.
My next question for you is how do I go about getting a wikipedia page set up for the website I work for? I noticed that this site has it's own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CollegeHumor what is the correct way to go about getting our site added without breaking any rules or getting my site "banned".
Thank you for your time and patience, you have been a great help.
Cphillips 14:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
List of Japanese N64 games
I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
WiltonBiz
Here is a copy of a post I left for the Wikipedia 'editor' Accurizer (ironic, no)-- maybe you should read it also, since it also pertains to the hack jobs you have done on my posts:
I'm not sure if you are the "editor" who has removed my latest links to www.babynamesgarden.com, but I take serious exception to your assertions that the site does not provide original research. In fact, it does, and in fact, it is one of the few baby names sites on the internet that does. In several sections of Wikipedia dealing with baby names you have removed citations to BabyNameGarden, while leaving in place citations to utter garbage. Do what you will, but don't pretend you have actually read, or understood, the cited material. Case in point #1: I posted citations to the excellent discussion about the top 100 baby names of the 20th century on Baby Names Garden. For your information, anyone who understands baby names and how they are reported in the US can tell you that that material was extremely time-consuming to put together. It involved massaging a lot of information in a database, not just pulling it from the Social Security Site. The Social Security site does not publish the info in that format -- go take a look before you ditch original research like that. The exact same issue occurred with citation to the Baby Names Garden report on unisex baby names -- again, public information was taken, completely reworked, in order to give people a new perspective. The new research was presented along with an original, interpretive article, and a new, ten year trend survey. And what did you do? Dumped the link, claiming it was not original material. Well dude, it was. You may enjoy the petty officiousness that comes with your Wikipedia editorial control, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change the basic fact -- you were wrong. It was good, original research, it received accolades from places like the Chicago Tribune and About.com, and it was incorrectly dumped from Wikipedia by someone who personifies the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." ```` wb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltonbiz (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing cites from name articles
Hi, SiobhanHanse. I saw a couple of your edit summaries "Replace non-reliable source with fact tag" on name articles I watch, but I didn't see any discussion of the reliability of the cites removed. Could you point me to that discussion? Thanks -- JHunterJ 11:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- copied here from User talk:JHunterJ#Removing cites from name articles
- Hi JHunterJ. If you are referring to the babynames.co.uk links I removed last night - no, there was no discussion. The website is a self-published site that was spammed (see these contributions for one of the offending IPs). The site claims they can assume no responsibility for the accuracy or veracity of [their] data! I used my own judgment in deciding it wasn't a reliable source. If you disagree we could open a discussion - maybe on one of the article talk pages - and I'll revert my edits if there's a consensus that it should be used. I was hoping to find a better source instead though. -- SiobhanHansa 11:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, nope, if they were added in violation of the spam guidelines, I agree that they should be removed. If they were simply unreliable, I would have preferred that they remain while other more reliable cites were found, but that's not the case here. Thanks. -- JHunterJ 11:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The Wild Wild Westmar Show
Hello, SiobhanHansa. I sincerely appreciate your message and want to extend an apology to you as well. I reacted rather viciously and as you have gathered, I did so because I knew I was about to watch all of my hard work go down the tube. It means a lot to me to know that someone out there has taken the time to reflect and empathize.
With regards to your first suggestion, I would appreciate it if you could ask the closing Admin to move the article into my user space for me instead of trying to do it myself. My guess is I probably won't get the same reaction that you will. Not only do you understand the boundaries, requirements, and goals of Wikipedia better than I, but you haven't flamed the entire place recently with your personal blow torch like I have.
And I will also consider your suggestion to begin a WikiProject on community radio or something similar. It's a reasonable idea that I obviously wasn't aware of.
All in all, I do understand the situation. I just wish I would've handled things differently, but what's done is done. But again, I appreciate your message and apology, and hope you will mine. Thank you again, SiobhanHansa.
PS - I hope this message finds you ok, ie, I hope I'm doing this right. I've kind of been learning on the fly the last couple of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbert Arthur (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Komen for the Cure
Hi there. This week's Time magazine cover-story on breast cancer talks about Komen being the "world's largest breast cancer organization" several times. I'm not sure how to site as I'm still new to this. But wanted to let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbues (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)