User talk:Haakon/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Haakon, I was going to supply the usual welcome to Wikipedia but I seen from your contributions [1] that you have been an intermittent contributor for more than a year. Somehow you slipped under the radar of the welcoming committee! Or perhaps you are more active in another language.

I am sure this is all superfluous, but here it is anyway:

Here are some useful links if you need any help:

You can sign posts on talk pages by entering four tildes (~~~~); the system automatically inserts your username with a datestamp. If you have any questions, see Wikipedia:Help, post a question to the Village pump, or leave a message on my Talk page. Enjoy, -- Viajero 18:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Linux distros

Hello,

I would like to know what kind of a link spam it is to add a link, straight to a tracker that tracks tens of linux distros with all the specified info, to the linux external links section? Isn`t that the place to tell where you can get Linux distributions or what? To be more precise, this page where I linked is not a page of my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.230.75.119 (talk • contribs)

When an anonymous user from an IP address which has never been used to edit Wikipedia before, adds an external link to a high-profile article like Linux, it really is linkspam in 99 of 100 cases. If you really have nothing to do with DataGalaxy, that's great, but understand that Wikipedia is not a link directory, nor a place to promote sites you like. We link to notable, highly relevant sites. DataGalaxy is not a notable site; it has a few benign Linux distributions seeded by a few people, and doesn't seem to show up at all in a search for linux torrents. I don't mean to be rude and I hope I don't dissuade you from further work on Wikipedia, but I think it's important to stick to the guidelines for external links. Haakon 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so in this case http://www.linux.org/dist/ is listed in the page, so it is a great site - too bad that it is not giving any links to free distro downloads. On the other hand, also the http://linux.mybookmarkmanager.com/ is very notable linux distro site, because it is listed high in the google search for linux torrents - too bad that it has only 30 linux distros(even all the major linux torrents cant be put to that amount) and no information about peers.
About the notification of "very few people seeding very few bening distros". I found all the major linux distros from there(the site I linked to) and all the distros i have downloaded(ubuntu + arkilinux + adios) came on full speed(8 mbit download). I also want to take an example of the world`s largest linux tracker at http://linuxtracker.org/(also listed very high in google search linux torrents) that in the first 25 torrents the are no seeders at all. A quick search shows that there are hundreds of torrents without seeders - tell me where i can find a linux tracker with all the biggest(most popular) distros + hundreds/dozens of seeders for the same torrent?
So - the most notable sites can be very poor also and in this case they really are, but wikipedia supports only notable sites - too bad for the people trying to find linux to download.
The people looking for Linux downloads shouldn't come to Wikipedia for that in the first place, same as you wouldn't take an encyclopedia down from the bookshelf to look for Linux downloads. DMOZ is an excellent link directory, and Google should find most things too. Haakon 19:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

greetings

Hi. I am looking for people interested in computing for inviting them in a non-Wikipedia (and non-Wikimedia) wiki project. I found you by looking at the history of the KGX article. I had a look at your Wikipedia contributions and found them good. I believe my project, which is a wiki about computer science and a wiki about information technology, will be of interest to you. If you want to be considered for invitation in the "core team" of the project, list your name at User:Npc/List. If you ignore this notice, I promise you that I will never send you any more messages. Thank you very much! Npc 23:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This link is not a spam sir.

Dear sir,

This link does not contain spam. It is a very populer site and it has about 500 visitors a day so please let it be added into the winmx page. link: http://www.oldapps.com/winMX.htm

Thank You, admin

Whether the site is popular or not is besides the issue; Wikipedia is not a link collection. Please see Wikipedia:External links, specifically, the "What should not be linked to" section. Quote: Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged ... I'm guessing you have some vested interest in oldapps.com, and you have certainly mass-added it to many articles, even when there is no clear interest for old versions of the applications. Finally, the site is pretty loaded with advertisement, which makes your motivation for adding the links even clearer, in my opinion. I am, however, not an admin, and if you disagree with me and the others reverting your adds, please raise the issue at Village Pump or another venue, and refer to any consensus there in your edit summaries if you continue to add the links. Haakon 21:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Proxy Server

NEW: From the guy who wrote the cgi-proxy stuff:

Why do you keep deleting my work? Have you actually read the paragraphs? They are informative and add to the entire article. Proxy Drop is NOT even my website, its just the one that I use on occasion and as such the one i feel most comfortable using as an EXAMPLE so people actually know what a CGI proxy is. Can you please stop deleting my entire paragraph every ten seconds? I did not want to have to edit your page but you are really bugging me. It isn't spam, it's an example site. Thank you.

I have read your paragraphs, and I rewrote them for factuality. "Remaining anonymous" is not an absolute. Using SSL does not make traffic "invisible" as you seemed to imply. The bit about "cyber criminals" feels oddly out of place. The link to the CGI proxy "example" is redudant as we already have a link to a whole lot of them under External links. Haakon 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop editing Proxy Server page.You've deleted some of the most quality proxy server resources proxyblind, digitalcybersoft and keep some unknown as whatismyproxy page that have nothing to do or have a very little information about proxy except one simple testing. If you chose to editing some page then take a look for quality resources about proxy server and not to preferring page that you like for whatever reason.


Thanks

I'm sorry, I did not mean to discriminate; I removed the other link too now. Wikipedia is not a link repository, we link to external resources that may be informative for those who have further interest in the topic. DMOZ has everything else, and we link to the relevant DMOZ entry too. Haakon 15:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


You said Quote:"Clean up External links: we link only to places useful for people who have further interest in the topic. DMOZ has everything else.) " One link is still there except Dmoz.If you preferer DMOZ as sources for proxy server (however i disagree with you) then leave only DMOZ. The problem is that DMOZ does have only some links to proxies.DMOZ is simple directory resources. I'm more for option to keep quality resources as it was all time (you suddenly start with deleting everything).For example the link that you forget to delete (Proxy) have some info about working of proxyserver, proxyblind (have a lot usefull infos), digitalcybersoft(have info's with programs too). I would ask you to think again about your move.If you understand how works proxies servers then take a time and look to deleted quality resources and place them back again. We do not need 20 links but 4-5 quality links is more than advisable.Furthermore if you can find there almost anything about proxy.

If you think the DMOZ category for proxy servers have too few links, you should submit links to it. While some of the CGI-style proxy sites may have had information about the workings of proxies, they were not described to have, nor were that their main purpose. The link that remains is for a richly-illustrated article that explains more about how proxies work, and those kinds of articles are what we should link to. People can find concrete proxy services from DMOZ. If we link to such a service, it would be hard to link to just a few, since there are so many, and people will want to add their favorite. Believe me, I've seen how this goes :-) Haakon 16:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Your link to DMOZ category is not correct.You link to CGi Proxy and that's are web based proxy. You have client, direct category etc... If you want to keep only DMOZ (it is very unreasonable decision as i told it before.DMOZ do not anymore update of their link category.You should use http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Internet/Proxying_and_Filtering/Hosted_Proxy_Services/Free/ instead that is regulary updated) then link to http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Proxying_and_Filtering/Hosted_Proxy_Services/Free/ (but it is outdated) And you really need to keep quality links and not only DMOZ. You did chosed again "richly-illustrated article".That's exactly what i tried to told you.Keep quality links with a lot information that are helpfull to visitor. Look at http://www.digitalcybersoft.com/ There are a lot information, some programs Look at http://www.proxyblind.org/ Pictorial description about proxy server, proxy test, a lot free programs, community

I would like to suggest you to keep 2 quality sites mentioned above.Take a look by both sites and make decision about quality of information that they provide regarding "proxy server".

Thanks, I fixed the DMOZ links so we use Google instead. I found a good and comprehensive tutorial on about.com, so I added a link to that. Proxyblind has pretty terrible HTML, which makes it almost impossible to read any of the tutorials in Firefox. Haakon 13:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice that you use google.About proxyblind.I do not have any problem to read whole page in firefox (version 1.0.7), opera (version 8.x or IE (6.0)?Everything load smoothly. It is rich resources of everything what have to do with proxy server. http://www.proxyblind.org/tut.shtml or http://www.proxyblind.org or any other page. Are you sure that everything works with your configuration of firefox? Check it twice :)

I checked it again. Both Firefox and Mozilla displays the tutorials themselves within a relatively narrow frame, which you have to scroll both horizontally and vertically in order to see everything. Since the frame is much taller than the visible page, you have to scroll the page in order to scroll the frame -- highly annoying. I was also annoyed by the Javascript msgbox that appeared every time I right-clicked the page. So I tried loading the page in Konqueror. This gives me a 403 Forbidden HTTP error for both http://www.proxyblind.org/tut.shtml and http://www.proxyblind.org, meaning that Konqueror users are excluded from the whole site. All in all, a very inaccessible page, and not a good candidate for external links. Haakon 17:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that i do not have such a problem.Maybe it have something to do with screen resolution form different browser.Right click on the page is blocked.Why do you need right click? If you would to see page code then you can always use view-source.About Konqueror.First time i heard from you right now that such thing exist.Wonder of there are 2% of visitors that use it. Furthermore i couldn't find any .exe file on their page to install it on my computer for testing purpouse.Not very friendly site. About proxyblind they have probably good reason why are right click and some browsers, User-Agent or referers that could be used malicious blocked. And it seems that many visitors does not have such a problems as you. Traffic Rank for proxyblind.org: 98,676

Look to the Alexa for user reviews:

Their frames at some tutorials pages sucks but nothing is perfect.

Well I'm sorry, there is no browser on my computer that can display their tutorials in a way that doesn't require substantial work from me for every new line. Accessibility should be a major criterium for external links, and ProxyBlind just fails. Konqueror is no minor browser either; Apple based their Safari web browser on it. And Firefox has over 10% of all users. If screen resolution is the problem, that is certainly no excuse. Haakon 20:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please let me know why did you delete this link and what do you see by the link below that you consider it as linkfarm??? I'm really surprised!?!? Charon is a free proxy filtering / searching / checking utility —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graciella (talk • contribs)

There are many tools for free proxy filtering/searching/checking. Do we list all of them? No, Wikipedia is not a link directory. Do we list just "Charon"? No, it has no notability, and exist just for Microsoft Windows, meaning it does not have universal appeal. Please review WP:EL, specifically, "What should not be linked to". Haakon 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many tools that has been listed under "Popular proxy server software: and they are still listed!! Charon is special tools because it is free and have more ability than only what i did write as description. His designer listen to the people wishes and development dream tools. I see already that wikipedia list Privoxy, Proxomotrion (Do we list of them? Hmmmm....) However this tool deserve to be listed!!! Furthermore it seems that you linked again to old and not updatde directory of DMOZ instead of google. I thought that you did change because you told me "Thanks, I fixed the DMOZ links so we use Google instead". It seems not to be true.

The products listed under "Popular proxy server software" are not "tools"; they are highly notable proxy server products. Charon is not a proxy server product, and is not highly notable. Yes, it may be a wonderful tool, but it's just a tool. It has no notability, and is only available for Microsoft Windows. Again, please refer to WP:EL.
I did not switch back to DMOZ proper; someone else did. It turns out that Wikipedia has a special template for DMOZ, which I take as an implicit declaration of condolence for this service. Therefore I think it's best to keep the DMOZ links. I don't know why Google has (or had) more links, but hopefully they'll get back in sync. Haakon 21:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

link to trousers in the Trusted Computing page

hello . my name is Damiano Biagioli , and i'm a computer science graduate from italy .i want to ask you a question : why do you think that the link is not "terribly relevant" ? ok, there's already a link to trousers in 'Trusted computing', but that particular FAQ entry makes clear that if you take ownership of you TPM using the HP TSS (that is ,using MS windows) you won't be able to use it under linux (using the trusted software stack from IBM) without 'clearing' the tpm (that is ,without wiping out all the data that has been sealed to the TPM ) , even if the TPM API is designed ,according to the specifications from the TCG,to be os-agnostic . so , i think that's a major technical flaw . Dbiagioli

The link was to a rather obscure FAQ entry. I understand the purpose of the link was to demonstrate that there are interoperatibility problems with TC, but such problems (if they are actual, notable problems) should be described in the article, and not as an external links. Haakon 10:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
the problem is, the TCG specifications are still evolving ... trousers (IBM) follows the TSS 1.1 spec , and is moving towards compliance with 1.2 spec .. i don't know what HP's intentions are . so , I thought a simple link was the best way to explain what's going on , as that FAQ is updated often Dbiagioli

WPSPAM

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. -- Perfecto 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cat#Cat_vocalization

merging closed source / proprietary

Hi, after adding the merge tags, the discussion moved to the Talk page for proprietary software. I would like to copy your comment from Talk:Closed source to Talk:Proprietary software but it would be useless to move your post without moving your signature, and I don't want to stick a statement from you into a different discussion. The context is practically identical, but it would of course be bad practice. If you could copy the statement over, or make a new statement, or let me know that it's ok to copy it across, or something like that, that would be good. Thanks. Gronky 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re : AmiciPhone

Probably the case. It's now gone. Thanks for the note! - Cheers Mailer Diablo 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) :)

Anonymizer

I just redirected this article to Proxy server, reasons at Talk:Anonymizer, SqueakBox 17:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Poor Rich Ones

Thank you so much for starting that article. I've literally put it off for 6 months, hah. --badlydrawnjeff 19:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm not sure that User:Borbank's edit to Luther Burbank was vandalism; he had just created a (rather marginal) article on a variety of blackberry developed by Burbank, and I think it was just a ham-fisted edit by a guy who's not a very good writer. You were right to revert it, but please be careful about labeling things as "vandalism" when they might just be inept good-faith efforts. -Colin Kimbrell 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

how to find the spam link?

hi, you recently removed the spam link in Macro photography, the link was Insect macro photos - Wild Animals Online encyclopedia] , i thought this was a proper link, can you please let me know how to figure out that links like this are spams? i am still inexperienced in detecting spam links.. thanks, --vineeth 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I noticed that the anonymous user had only edited wikipedia to insert external links. Then, I noticed that all of his links were to the same web sites. This usually means that he owns or has vested interest in those web sites and are using wikipedia to promote them. They may still be useful, but in his case, his links did not add much information at all. External links should be to content that provides further topical insights, but his didn't. For Macro photography, how does a bunch of macro photos of insects give the reader a better understanding of what macro photography is? The article already had example photos, and Wikipedia obviously cannot link to every single site that may have even more examples. That's how I reason. :-) For more info, see WP:EL. Haakon 10:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Which external links are relevant to Dave Winer

Hi, Haakon--I recognized your name because you and I have both defended Adam Curry and some other articles from vandals. Re. Dave Winer IMO, for people who devote a lifetime to tech creation, links to technologies or websites they helped create are vital to their biography. If you look at bios of, for example Sam Ruby and Joshua Schachter, you see links of exactly that kind, also links to their personal weblogs. I agree that the original list was a tangled mess, so I tried to carry on your general cleanup. Disclaimer, Dave Winer is a blogfriend of mine from his days in Boston, but he claims he never reads Wikipedia and i believe him. Are you coming to Wikimania? betsythedevine 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your note; I suppose you're right. I'm quite phobic of large EL sections, especially when they're such a mess :-) Sharp relevance is king. Your reorganisation is a great improvement though. Wish I was able to go to Wikimania -- perhaps another year. Haakon 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

stormpay

thanks for your effors in combating spamming on this page! 203.218.88.199 14:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A fellow spam fighter

First off, I have to say I love the anon comments on the user pages of spam fighters. Secondly, if you're not already aware Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam has a ton of helpful material. Feel free to sign up too. When adding warnings to the offender's user page, make sure you substitue them. Also, successive violations of the spam policy can be met with {{subst:spam2}} and then {{subst:spam3}} on the user's page. Good luck in your battles, Mrtea (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new category! (Category:Wikipedians with 1000-2500 edits )

Good work--thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia! betsythedevine 00:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

quit deleting useful spam links ! =

Dear sir, this is the 'phantom' and I suggest you stop deleting the esteemed link of Wallace Munchovis or you will be cursed by zealous centepede that suffers from PMS and will be deprived of your daily ration of Fritos.

Amen my sock-pupinski brother!! Hack-a-long: please leave my links and quit being a mini-dictator! ThANKS! 0waldo 15:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kofi Annan in Canada Free Press

Hi Haakon. Thank you for catching the vandalism re: Michael Moore at Canada Free Press. I have also started a discussion on the CFP talk page re: SlimVirgin deleting the Kofi Annan paragraph. [2] You contributed to the passage. Please feel free to let your reasons for the paragraph staying or going be known. --Cyberboomer 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum

What do you think about the External links on Lorem ipsum? And by the way, the site lorem-ipsum.info blocks Opera (and probably Konqueror) from using all its features, claiming they are "bad". 218.102.218.250 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

from 0waldo

Haakon, please be kind and stop vandalizing my work; you don't need to be on a hate 0waldo and destroy my work campaign. 0waldo 01:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Haakon, please go and pick on some other poor editor. THANK YOU very much. 0waldo 17:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dendrophilia

Please see talk:Dendrophilia. `'mikka (t) 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up

I know who you really are. Please no google employees contact me with their retarded baby pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexus Goof (talk • contribs)

What? Haakon 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

comment from 0waldo

Haakonn: why did you delete my comment to you? Why did you call that vandalism? Jimbo Wales knows that this place has the right of free speech and I told you to ”get chucked”. What’s wrong with that? You are a mere dribble in my mind and I’m entitled to tell you that. Now mind you that I don’t mean that in a hurtful or spiteful manner, I just mean it in the context that you need to pick on me to make yourself feel “powerful” because I think you are weak. Your continual actions against my edits prove what I am saying. You should NOT get a job in law-enforcement because you would wind up kicking and bludgeoning your victims for a parking ticket violation (in my opinion mind you). Now, again, I suggest you leave this comment on here if you are man enough, and if you are not then just delete it and falsely call me a “vandal”. When you start being mean and doing things to “dare” people on this place, just read this paragraph again and again. 0waldo 02:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not entitled to handle out personal attacks on Wikipedia. And particularly not on user pages. I would have left it if you had posted it to this user talk page, but my user page is my own. When someone inserts a personal attack on it, that is vandalism. Haakon 09:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure...

Hi Haakon, you recently deleted all the links from the Internet art page. Should a fresh article named Internet art projects be created? Maybe not with so many links, but I think many users would like some examples somehow. Thanks for reading, --Asterion talk to me 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. It would possibly be too much hassle. Who would decide what is remarkable enough for listing? After reading your explanation, I think that, if anything, we should link to the DMOZ directory entry on the subject. Cheers, --Asterion talk to me 17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Futurama "linkspam"

Hello Haakon, I don't know why you deleted the entry of the Website I made in "External Links > Major fansites", exactly Over Here. I just added a fan website, that also has info and stuff of the Series. I could add more sites like Futurama Madhouse or The Futurama Point (that you deleted)... I just wanna know, if the Section says "External links", why are you deleting the External Links? That means that if I add a Fansite of a Band on the External Links for example, you'll delete it!!! Why!? javoec 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines for external links has this to say about fan sites:

On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

So since there are so many good Futurama fan sites and it would be hard to pick just one, I replaced all of them with the appropriate DMOZ entry. Sorry if I seemed to be discriminating earlier. Haakon 21:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Lunsford Act

I wanted to extend my thanks to you for telling the truth regarding the Jessica Lunsford Act article. I did edit the article a bit and threw in some criticisms.

While I try to remain neutral on this issue (for reasons of credibility, I have been accused of being too "partisan" to give objective opinions in the past), I did find that people who oppose the bill are much better at using statistics rather than emotion.

Peace! Piercetp 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Link correction

Thanks for correcting that. My fault for making a last-minute switch from the much simpler WP:EL... —Whouk (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

LimeWire Article

Regarding the "LimeWire Official Forum" link listed at the bottom of the LimeWire article, you wrote "seems to me that the limewire.org forum is more official".

If you go to http://www.limewire.com/english/content/forum_intro.shtml and click on "Continue to the Message Forums", it takes you to http://www.gnutellaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=7, not http://www.limewire.org/forum/ . The latter forum hardly has any posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.23.207 (talk • contribs)

Ok, thanks and sorry, feel free to change it back. If people would only use the Edit summary field to explain their changes, I'm sure things like these would happen rarelier. Haakon 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Pi on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Savidan made a mistake here. Haakon was reverting vandalism and Savidan restored it.--Bill 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Things happen a bit fast some times :-) Haakon 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My edit was reverted(from the "Linux and the GNU Project" section in the linux article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux&action=history while my edit may not be well written,it contained some valid information:

  • the link to the fsf document on GNU/linux
  • the historic reason
  • (the philosophic reason)

213.189.165.28 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Public domain?

Can you cite sources or present some other proof to confirm that the image Image:0waldo.muncaster.castle.postcard.jpg is more than 50 years of age? mic 23:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I assumed it on the basis of RHaworth's edit [3], but there is indeed nothing substantial to support it. Haakon 00:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

usenet

Hello Haakon, you are complete delete the binaries related link on the usenet page. This is a bad idia, science important ISP like AOL no longer cover USENET. A lot of people have no home access to usenet, and it is a hard task to find one without buy an extra account. So every free access to the binary part of the usenet is a very welcome option to explore the usenet. --UfoFreak 11:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Usenet#Binaries again. Haakon 17:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see responses at Talk:Usenet#Binaries again --UfoFreak 11:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award you this barnstar for your good work and good communication with others, and in particular for not escalating Internet art into an edit war ove external links. Tyrenius 16:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
For good editing work and sound communication Tyrenius 16:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Limewire

What uncited critisism? If you've ever used Limewire, you'd know its the truth. Many many MANY people know what i'm talking about.

Koolgiy

In the end it's just an opinion, which Wikipedia is not the place to air. Haakon 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia page (anti-vandalism)

I can't say I wouldn't have deleted that, but it probably couldn't be considered vandalism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinlv7 (talk • contribs)

Right, "pov" would be more appropriate. He had vandalised many other articles and I had just gotten into the "vandalism" edit summary :-) Haakon 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

List of search engines

Hello, I noticed that you reverted the changes of the article "List of Search Engines" back to its previous revision. As I commented in the discussion section of this article, the links posted were not linkspam, and I do not own/benefit from traffic for any of the sites posted. Should an article entitled "List of Search Engines" not link to the engines referenced? After, it's supposed to be a list. And out of curiosity, why did you nominate IRCDig and Zoogle for deletion? The articles point the user in the direction of finding certain things on the web, and I believe that it is the intent of wikipedia to educate, not supress.

Another thought. If external links are considered wrong, and you believe that the articles of some of the search engines should be deleted, why not simply include the name, with no link whatosoever. I'm fairly confident that the users, having aptitude enough to find wikipedia will have enough aptitutde to find other search engines without having an article written about them.

Also, please read my latest post on the "List of Search engines" page. There are several links to articles which I believe do not belong in that article. Tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.132.180 (talk • contribs)

I removed the external links from List of search engines because that article is only meant to be a list of links to Wikipedia articles (quoting its introduction, my emphasis: "The following is a list of World Wide Web search engine services for which Wikipedia has articles.") As such, non-linked entries do not belong either. My reasons for nominating Zoozle and IRCDig for deletion are given in those nomination pages as should be, so please refer to those. Haakon 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass-reverting

Hello Haakon (or Håkon?) I was reverting Fiach6383's linkspam, but it seems that you have a trick to do mass reverting very quickly and beat me. How do you do that? Han-Kwang 09:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My trick is that I click my mouse really, really fast. I don't have any particular tools, I just follow the non-admin guidelines in Wikipedia:Reverting. :-) (that's double-A, not å) Haakon 09:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Vigilantiism

I'm curious Haakon why you have decided to take it upon yourself to practice vigilantiism? I notice that on your user page there are more articles you are trying to delete than actually author? Are you so offended by other people that rather than create you need to focus on deleting? JesseHirsh 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. One of the focuses of my Wikipedia work is to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and not all things belong in an encyclopedia. My current deletion list is long because I didn't think to group seven of the items together as I should have. If you think anyone of them should stay, please pass your comment to the deletion pages, referring to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm not infallable. Haakon 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a "Wikipedia" since that's how the world thinks of it, rather than an "encyclopedia". I can understand why active members of Wikipedia such as yourself would aspire to it being an encyclopedia, however it will never be. It will always be a wikipedia, and whether or not you fight neologisms, or other perceived evils, you will still never be an encyclopedia. --JesseHirsh 22:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I could have not said it better myself. I mean what reputable encyclopedia has entries or "articles" on movies or bands? Furthermore ALL articles on wikipedia are based on user provided information in which cases the user is very rarely an expert in that field. Not to mention all the BS political editing that goes on by most wikipedia "regulars" interjecting their opinions and biases on what articles say or what articles exist, thus his large list of deletion nominations. KernelPanic 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Starting a flame war on an editor's talk page accomplishes nothing. I fail to see how nominating an AfD is vigilantiism in any way, shape, or form. The crux of the situation is this: if you feel that your article is worthwhile, pleasantly accept that the other editor has made a mistake, and argue your case. If you want to defend your work, doing it here via personal attack will accomplish nothing; you'd both do better to spend your time at the relevant AfD discussions. Rather than attacking the reputation of Wikipedia, you may wish to prioritize explaining how your contributions can improve our reputation, which should be a goal on everyone's mind. Thank you. Luna Santin 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ATI

I don't think this : [blacklisted link removed] is 24.470 times my own POV. 82.244.80.175 12:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC) and also user:Yug

[blacklisted link removed]
Just because a lot of people signed some petition does not make your assertions correct. "Linux + an ATI video card = a really slow computer"? No, I have a computer right here to disprove that. I rewrote it into a neutral point of view. Haakon 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
For me, 24.470 people is not "some", and many don't know this petition, so that probably about 200.000 to 1.000.000 of people. Moreover, I have a Radeon 8500 mobility and Linux, and the fact is just in front of me for the last 2 years. Afterwhat went I see and read a petition like this, I think you are really nice with ATI ("ATI's inadequate drivers" : I understand that ATI did nothing, and that Linux programmer try to fix it with "inadequate" things.).
I leat this like this, and just put this discussion in the article discussion page. Yug

Please do not change my listings

I have tried several times to add a link to the Microsoft SQL Server page, but it keeps getting removed, by you and others. Please stop this. The link is to my website, which has been around since June 2000 and has over 250,000 unique visitors a month. In fact, it is much larger in size than most of the websites that are currently linked on this page. --Brad M. McGehee 6-15-2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmcgehee (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a link directory or a "listing". Please see WP:EL for Wikipedia's external linking guidelines. The editors are removing your link with basis in this. Please submit your link to DMOZ instead. Haakon 16:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your perspective. If you don't accept my link, then you should not accept any links. Besides, the link fits perfectly with the guidelines. Perhaps you need to re-read them. Below is an excerpt, and my website fits 100%. Perhaps you need to do some research before you delete.

"In Wikipedia, it is possible to link to external websites. Such links are referred to as "external links". Many articles have a small section containing a few external links. There are a few things which should be considered when adding an external link.

Is it accessible? Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)? Is it entered correctly? Is the link, in the context used, likely to have a substantive longevity? For example, it is not useful to link to a homepage that changes often and merely happens to have a relevant picture or article on its front page at the moment. Similarly, be very wary of citing an unstable page as a source.

What should be linked to: Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews."

Also, the Wikipedia guidelines also say "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

So please follow the guidelines and stop making changes. --Brad M. McGehee 6-15-2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmcgehee (talk • contribs)

Let's have the discussion here instead. Haakon 17:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Study Abroad linkspam

Thanks for backing me up there, Haakon, and taking initiative. You did exactly what was needed and what I lacked the experiential confidence to enact. -GlamdringCookies 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I should remove my 'Hitman' spoilers question, as I got the answer, but I'm still figuring out these talk pages. Anyway, thanks for the tip, and the compliment; I agree with you about 'Futurama', and figured I'd just start pruning, as nobody seemed to be paying attention to the talk page anymore. ThatGuamGuy 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

Undoing other people's edits repeatedly

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ardenn 16:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am of the impression that 3RR does not apply for reverting vandalism or spam. I always try my darndest to stay way clear of 3RR, and if there is anything not clear cut, I always discuss it on talk pages rather than revert repeatedly. I am not sure which reverts you specifically refer to, but if I acted too quickly I do apologise to whoever was affected. I would appreciate it if you could be more specific, though, so I can try to improve my conduct. Haakon 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't normally apply to spam, but that can depend on weather or not the spam is clearly spam, or debatable. Ardenn 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP to piddle about

Don't touch software protection pages because you are not more expierenced in this area than we. Keep out of trouble, please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.175.97 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the friendly warning. Haakon 19:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your slanderous smear and subsequent apology

By claiming I am Tom Weiss you are committing a slanderous smear. I am not Tom Weiss, please take back your false comment. TV Genius 14:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Whether Tom is notable or not is a separate issue, I believe he is on the grounds that other local UK councillors with less notability (ie no publishing record) hgave articles here. TV Genius 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BitTorrent Trademark

I've put the BT trademark info back on bittorrent - why did you delete it? Trapper 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux

I thought you might be interested. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

link spam

you deleted several of my links to A Brighter Place - it is NOT a commercial site! Yes, the website is mine but i added it to those pages because i sincerely felt they were relevant to the topic...! are u really going to argue they were irrelevant, and thus, spam?! the sole idea of a brighter place is to.. guess what.. make it a brighter place for those students or "tourists" coming to barcelona..!! thats all.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.144.57 (talk • contribs)

Relevance is not a factor. Wikipedia is not a link directory; it is not a collection of links, and it is not a venue for promoting your websites, like you did. Please see WP:EL for Wikipedia's policy on external linking. Thanks. Haakon 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" Dude, i seriously cant believe you deleted all those links. they were sincere and honest links! unlike others, such as about.com (that is just one example!) - which is full of ads! - brighter place is nottt a commercial site! so, of course, the idea is not to promote my site as such - its to help those who need it! come on dude, u have to be joking.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baaa (talk • contribs)

"All those links"; yes, there were quite a lot of them. Wikipedia is not a link directory. External links are for filling in factual blanks in articles, not for simply listing your site because it has some relevance. I'm sure your site is great, but you should submit it to DMOZ instead, where people come in search of those things. Haakon 20:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough dude, i get your point about not linking in all those articles. i'll just leave the 2 links that were already there before today (podscroll and barcelona) and leave it at that... is that ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baaa (talk • contribs)

Your site is not about podscrolls, it's just a service for publishing them. These do normally not belong under external links. Likewise, your site is not about Barcelona, it's just a service for people going there. Your link really does belong in DMOZ and not in Wikipedia. It's especially considered bad form to add links to your own sites; see the third part of this. Haakon 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, first of all. Check the facts section in my site - is that not ABOUT barcelona? The website for rough guides in podscrolls - is that ABOUT podscrolls? The FC Barcelona website - is that ABOUT the city of Barcelona?? On the Spain website, there is a link to about.com's travel guide to spain - its not ABOUT spain, its for people who go there (not to mention its a completely commercial website). On the norway wiki article, there is a link to studyinnorway.no link - there is nothing ABOUT norway there. In madrid article, there is "citysecrets" guide to madrid - not ABOUT madrid. or the flamenco travel guide to madrid - not ABOUT madrid. (im assuming ull go to all these articles and delete them, right? its only consistent with ur reasoning...)

My point is, my website is completely within topic, relevant to the topic, and informative for visitors. such that visitors have come from wikipedia and found the site interesting. BUT, i'll go with the guidelines and let a neutral decide: ill put it up for discussion in the barcelona board - and see wat the people say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baaa (talk • contribs)

Relevance is not a factor. Wikipedia is not a link directory. I am a neutral; I have no prior involvement with you, Barcelona, or most of the articles you have spammed. Haakon 05:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry man, but u dont own wikipedia. stop being such a fascist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baaa (talk • contribs)

look. u dont own wikipedia. its everyone's. not mine or yours, right? we obviously disagree on the definition of the external links section. u have one point of view, i have another. what makes u right and me wrong? i'm sorry but i just dont get it. i understand u dont want this to become sort sort of linkfarm, and i agree! point is, if i have ONE link on ONE article, that it is relevant AND according to guidelines: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" AND "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" - i think i am entitled to be on the external links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baaa (talk • contribs)

Don't rely on me; I gladly and often reconsider if others disagree with me, and I do indeed not own Wikipedia. You should argue your point at Talk:Barcelona. Don't waste your time on my talk page. Haakon 13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

alright then, until someone ELSE disagrees and arugues i'll leave the link up.


This is a message of support to Haakon. You are completely in the right on this. I see that you have been doing some good work on other articles in removing linkspam, both of both the commercial and "vanity publishing" types. This has recently become a bugbear of mine too, and it is good to see others working to improve Wikipedia by removing it.

--Bcnviajero 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Group hug

I never said I liked the article. I just said I was glad that someone (or something) had information on it, because I was a little puzzled by the site. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss before readding (or removing) templates. I did. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah

Re:[4] Now I see what you were saying, and I agree that it isn't a major part of his personality (although it is referenced in a few different episodes other than "A Flight to Remember"). Its mention in his article is plenty sufficient for me. EVula 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Good :-) Haakon 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Futurama

Diewelt had simply asked me why there were only four seasons presented on the page, I explained to him why, it was not a "hidden message" meant to attack anyone. Also, there are five airing seasons of the show, but I, and nearly everone working on Futurama articles, uses the production season (of which there were four) because they are canon. --WillMak050389 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you had replied to him (after years on Wikipedia, I seem to never get accustomed to cross-talk page conversations :-) The "hidden message" was in reference to this, after which I took his message to you as trying to gather support for using airing seasons instead of production seasons as canonical. Seems I overinterpreted, sorry. Haakon 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok. That's fine. I just didn't want to be accused of something I didn't do wrong. I understand now. --WillMak050389 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebedev

I was looking through the Mikhail Lebedev page and it seems to be vanity and non-notable to me. First of all, there is hardly any information about him on Google. Then, none of the publications seem to be news-worthy and notable. Finally, the scientist does not have many 1st author publications and seems to be non-important in his field. If you agree with me, can you please help me nominate Mikhail Lebedev for deletion? --GoOdCoNtEnT 08:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion is easy, just read this. I am not familiar with the notability criteria for scientists. Haakon 08:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I nominate articles for deletion, errors pop-up. Plus I do not want to nominate it myself because I am still uncertain whether it should be nominated. I asked people to tell me if it is an Afd candidate, and I told them to nominate it for me if it is. --GoOdCoNtEnT 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SEO

I agree with your point about "pointless Americanization," but perhaps that editor was acting in good faith to fix what he thought was a spelling mistake. It would be better to leave him a friendly message so he understands, rather than reverting his edit and maybe driving him away from Wikipedia. Only 10% of Americans have a passport. Overseas travel is very expensive, so many of us are extremely provincial. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Link site?

Hello, The site you described as a link site is filling with original news articles submitted directly by college football Sports Information departments. Why would it be classified as only a link site? Bbowenjr 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:College_football. Haakon 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


vlog

Hi. I had a long discussion in the discussion page of the vlog entry before changing the definition source. It was agreed upon by antoher user who is doing a lot of editing on that page. I had to back up my change with a source that was approved by him.

You say in the history of the page "05:23, 7 September 2006 Haakon (Talk | contribs) (please stop promoting yourself on wikipedia, steve garfield)"

I don't think it's right that you said that in the edit history with no way for me to reply. Can you delete that? This should be discussed in the discussion page if I understand wikipedia correctly.

How do I reply to that? Where is your source for that comment? Yes, I co-wrote the article about vlogging, but it's all factual.

I'm just trying to get this entry accurate and happen to be someone who has been video blogging since January 1, 2004, so I know the history. Stevegarfield 11:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seemed a little harsh, but it looked very blantant to me. I didn't know there was extensive discussion and consensus on the talk page, since I haven't followed it. To me it just looked like you exchanged a reference with one from yourself, out of the blue. I hope you will use the edit summary in the future to explain your edits, like you always should. That would have completely dodged any misunderstanding, though it does not excuse my rudeness. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and I always look forward to another Carol and Steve Show. Haakon 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So what about delteting the edit summary where you accuse me of promoting myself? It's still there. Can you remove that? Stevegarfield 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that... it's a good article... and was a much needed source. That steve wrote it has no consequence. We were looking for sources that helped define video blogging. And also... Steve is great all round guy. Definitely one of the pioneers in this space... it's no accident that an article he helped write was cited. It's because he wrote a damn good article.--mmeiser 10:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

BeRoEXEPacker

According to the prod guidelines, anybody may remove the "proposed deletion" template, and it should not be re-added to a page (nor should the date be changed). I have started an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeRoEXEPacker instead. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was unaware of that. I learn every day :-) Haakon 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

obfuscation software

Why do you remove PELock's x86 obfuscator link from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscated_code? As i know its the only ONE x86 assembler obfuscator! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelock (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a link directory. Please see WP:EL for Wikipedia's external links guidelines, and consider submitting your link to a link directory such as DMOZ instead. Thanks. Haakon 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haakon/Archive1&oldid=1139102459"