User talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cumbrowski. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion with this User or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Cumbrowski -

Current Talk Page .oOo.

< Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - ... (up to 100)

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cumbrowski/Archive_5.

Spam reversion

Thanks for your policing. Whoever that number is (any relation to Troll666?) has a higher opinion of my diligence in checking that page than I do of myself. High time I did some archiving, but haven't learnt to do it yet! It's the 'Notes to self' carry forwards that I have to sort out before doing it. Perhaps if I run into a snarl-up I could ask your advice? Best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 07:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. The creation of an archive page is actually fairly easy. I do it manually whenever my talk page gets too big. I have not played with the automated tools yet, but the activity on my talk page does also not require this (yet) :)

I made a mistake. Here is the corrected version

Here is a quick primer

Create a new User Talk Page with the suffix "/Archive 1". Here is the link to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr_Steven_Plunkett/Archive 1
It will say that the page does not exist yet. Go and press edit.
Add at the top the following code. {{User:Cumbrowski/usertalkarchivenav}}
Open your default talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr_Steven_Plunkett and press edit.
Select everything you want to archive and cut it out of the page ("Ctrl-X")
Paste the content into the new talk page after the {{User:Cumbrowski/usertalkarchivenav}} template
Add a link on your standard talk page to the Archive page {{archive box|auto=yes}}
Save the standard talk page and you are done

Notes

The next archive pages would work the same, just call them .../Archive 2 ..../Archive 3 etc.
The {{User:Cumbrowski/usertalkarchivenav}} template is a modified version of the {{atnhead}} template and adds the little box to the archive which you can see here User_talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 1. It creates a link to your current talk page automatically (that's why the specific name .../Archive X). It also adds a little navigation to the previous and next archive page. In addition to that (my custom part) does it add a reference to your user page and shows your name (that it is your user talk archive) and the {{userpage}} at the bottom. I also changed the font sizes and colors to emphasis the important parts.
The {{archive box|auto=yes}} on your main user talk page creates a little "Archive" box with links to all your archive pages automatically. You don't have to change that one anymore. It automatically detects, if new archive pages were created.

Let me know, if you have any questions. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my error --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I created a little Wikipedia Resources Page, which you might find useful. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr geehrter Herr Cumbrowski! Thanks very much for the above guidance!! I have (with very slight amendments) copied it onto the top of my new and beautifully clean discussion page, (where your authorship of it is clearly indicated). Amazing that I have been on WP for six months and still can't do some of these basic things. Thanyou so much for your help. I think archiving is very important as it enables one to move on from older preoccupations. Hope you're flourishing, Carsten: best wishes from Steven. Dr Steven Plunkett 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure and don't worry. I learned the "easier" way to archive much later than after 6 months :). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the template on your archive page does not work 100%. The link to the "current talk page" is invalid. It refers to itself. This might have something to do with your username, which contains spaces. It seems that the template can't interpret the archive page syntax correctly as a result of that. Mhhh. Tricky.

You speak German a bit right? I stepped only by accident over a discussion about the proper German for "toilet/rest room/lavatory". I left a big comment there and that was it. You can find it here. Pretty funny actually. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! I checked that. Apropos of nothing, the old-fashioned Suffolk name for an outdoor kind with wooden shelf and tin bucket (ivy, etc) is a 'bumbury'. I too noticed the 'return' link didn't work, but that suits me as they have to really want to return to the current talk page. Dr Steven Plunkett 16:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbury, interesting. How do you call that thing that is basically a hole in the ground with a wodden makeshift wooden construct over it made of timber beams? It looks like an "A" from the side and a "H" with two horizontal bars instead of one from the front. We had to build (and use) those at the boy scouts. They were dubbed "Donnerbalken" = "Donner" (thunder) + "balken" (beam), the beam that (sometimes) sounds like "thunder" hehe.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely analogous, in English it is called a 'Thunderbox', though this covers a variety of different designs, and also does not bear the locality-specific interest of the other term. Also at outdoor festivals, especially of the 'Green' kind, Albion fairs, etc, there is the simple but treacherous kind which consists of a large, deep pit with a plank or bench merely stretched across one side of it, as in Roman times suitable for the use of several persons at once, without partitions, and (sometimes) a curtain or sheet in front to spare the feelings of the onlookers but without sympathy for the participants (and usually no curtain behind). The usual name for this arrangement is the 'Long drop', or more usually in the plural, 'long drops'. I have never used one, but I know of other people who have, so I know this by personal communication (pers. comm.), which is permitted in some academic publications: but if it were personal knowledge only, that would be original research, which is not allowed in WP. In either case I fear it is unverifiable without private research at fairs, and may now have passed into desuetude. Thankyou for your continued interest. Dr Steven Plunkett 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Long Drop" hehe... yep.. and a curtain. Done that. It's not nice, but better than in the open wilderness. Sitting on the beam is not very comfortable and you have to watch yourself a bit, that you don't slip (which would be very unpleasant, even though everybody before you was covering his business with sand (to prevent the smell, since no chlorin is being used). Even though it is simplistic, is it an unique demonstration of some of the basic concepts of physics and there is a lot you can screw up. That's why hat the builders always to do the "test sitting" first to make sure that the angles and distance between the beams are okay. Funny subject. Most big city guys can't relate to that at all. I had the luck to get out a lot into nature, even though I grew up in the "city-jungle" of Berlin :). Btw. I fixed your talk archive. I hope you like it. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Picasa45x45.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Picasa45x45.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its used for a Wikipedia User Template here User:UBX/Picasa. Is there a way to flag an image as being used in the user name space rather than the main article name space? A second image was flagged like this too so I would like to know if there is a way to avoid this. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wikipedia logo50px blackbg.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia logo50px blackbg.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its used in the wikipedia user name space. Is there a way to flag an image as being used in the user name space rather than the main article name space? A second image was flagged like this too so I would like to know if there is a way to avoid this. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Picasa45x45.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Picasa45x45.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive angst

Hi Carsten, I made my second archive according to your rules, and have added a link at the top of my regular talk page, but (vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas) while the page with the archive on exists, named User talk:Dr Steven Plunkett a2, it doesn't appear linked in the Archive box on the page User talk:Dr Steven Plunkett. Waaaaaah...! Can you disconscrambulate for me, pleeeese? PS I may have another request shortly about another technical Userpage matter, okay? Hope you're in fine shape, Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 08:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message on your page and mine. You have to call the archive page: User talk:Dr Steven Plunkett/Archive_X in your case for the second archive page User talk:Dr Steven Plunkett/Archive 2. Then add to the top of that page {{User:Cumbrowski/usertalkarchivenav}} and that's it. All the other steps I explained the first time are not necessary anymore. I updated the template on your main user talk page already, which is "smart" and recognizes automatically if a new archive page was added. I will fix the archive for you, but keep this in mind for your third archive page. The Documentation (the correct one) is available here: User:Cumbrowski/usertalkarchivenav --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! you are a diamond geezer. I am phobic about this kind of stuff. I have been thinking about changing my Username altogether, not to hide the old, but because I think the nakedness of the name is distracting for some other users, and I'd like to just keep on a level with people. I only put the 'Dr' on, before I'd done any editing, because there was another User:Steven Plunkett, and now I regret it. Would you be able to guide me through this one? I'd like to sort of 'wind-up' the present userpage, and then just link it ahead to a new one with a different tag, where the metamorphosis (Verwandlung) will be explained to a wondering world. No sockpuppetry or disguise intended! Can you suggest a procedure? Dr Steven Plunkett 10:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhh... tough one. You have to create a new user account. I would then move all talk page and archive pages content to an archive page for the new user account. Do the same with the user page content itself. When you did that, add the following code to your old user page #Redirect [[User:Steven Plunkett]] and to your old user talk page #Redirect [[User Talk:Steven Plunkett]]. I would also add a note at the top of your new user page and new user talk page, that you changed user names with a link to the contributions made via your old user via this code: [[Special:Contributions/Dr_Steven_Plunkett]]. This is the way I would do it. I don't know if there is any other way of doing it. You might want to ask an Admin who has much more access to functions that are not available to normal editor accounts. The shortcoming of my described method is the loss of edit history. You start out as if you were new. That's why my suggestion to refer to the edit history of your old account. The move of all the content from the old to the new user and the redirect from the old user pages to the new are making sure that people don't think that you created a second account to be used as a Sock puppet. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I hope that helps. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it helps a lot!! It is about what I thought, but you have given me some useful detailed guidelines. I'll let you know how it goes. Dr Steven Plunkett 12:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEViANCE

I will undelete the article if you promise to turn it into something that 1) doesnt look like crap 2) isnt full of bullshit links 3) has references... I agree DEViANCE is a notable group... but the article we had sucked. There was more text spent on the shutdown of the group and its members than on the group history. Half the article was fair use images as well. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. I have a copy of the article that was deleted. It requires cleanup and references. It is on my todo list and when I have the time, I will start a new one and salvage from the old one what is worth using again and make sure to digg up references in the vast pool of information called the Internet :). Thanks though, but I think my approach would be better. An undelete only increases the chance of another AfD nomination without having enough time to get the article right and have a much stronger position in case it will be tagged as AfD again anyway. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Attack Sites' essay

You might find this essay to be of interest. *Dan T.* 01:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan. It's hitting the nail on the head. this discussion does attest to that. It's not a reliable source though hehe. I also believe that the supporters of this "badsites" mentality hurt themselves with discussions like this because of a reference to a site like this embedded in a page like this, which is admitting problems that are pointed out by those external sites, but also suggests solutions and/or the positive side of things that maybe outweigh the problems to a large degree or provide reasons, why it is worth the time and energy to overcome those problems. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeQ

Cumbrowski,

Us newbie editors look up to more dedicated volunteers like you. We very much appreciate what you are doing :) Because of all the discussion about PrimeQ at least there's a third party reference there as of this post. The quality of the article has gone up.

When it comes to third party references about affiliate/search engine marketing/optimisation firms their Wikipedia credibility is absolutely essential. Now PrimeQ has the community - and Google - to thank, without lifting a finger* - just look at their SERP** listing.

Wikipediholicism is bad for your social life/health. :)

--Simonay 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Just stating the facts :)

**Search Engine Results Page, for the rest of us

Hi Simonay, I agree with you to 100%. The problem is that search engine optimization/marketing and even more so affiliate marketing is not (or only little and often inaccurate) a subject of main stream media yet. SEO is only recently getting good mainstream coverage as the excellent article at the New York Times from this month demonstrates [1] (if you don't have an account to access the article, send me an email with an email address to send the article in PDF format to).

We have for this reason to rely on credible sources from within the industry. The discussion about the nomination of search engine optimization as featured article (see disussion) demonstrates this nicely.

Regarding the reference for the Prime! article. Whether or not "Thinkaffiliate.co.uk" is a reliable source is not established yet. Hardcore deletionists will not consider it enough evidence for notability. I am certain of that. See the two AfD discussions and the deletion review discussion for the Shareasale article.

It's not easy, but both sides of the argument have valid points that should not be ignored and the consensus in the middle is usually the best solution for everybody.

--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cumbrowski,

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, it's true that the SEO/SEM/AM world is quite new. However, there is a growing list of publications (books, magazines, news articles) covering the topic. Many of these articles are only accessible via a university library extranet/intranet, so maybe there will be a need to cite these references. There's also a need for willing and able people to do the footwork (to get these references). However, there are also credible third party references (not dodgy websites) on the web, but one has to work a bit harder to find it. I found some credible third party references to PrimeQ but I'm not going to help do charity work for the company :) Anyway it's already high in the Google SERP organic listing so I won't even bother :P --Simonay 00:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook userbox

Thanks for the suggestion. I really like it. I copied your version onto mine, and it's now reflected at User:Dan0 00/Userboxes/Facebook --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan0 00 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 June 2007

nice, thanks. I switched the userbox on my page and deleted my version (= your version now). I updated 2 other userboxes directly, because it was only a link color change, but I wasn't sure about yours, because I made several adjustments :).

I also suggested an update to the talkarchive template here Template_talk:Talkarchive#Add_Reference_to_User_and_Link_to_User_Page. You are not using it yet, but you might know, if I can just go ahead and change the template or not. It makes a lot of sense to me. I added for now additional code in my user talk archive pages to do the same thing, see User_talk:Cumbrowski/Archive_1. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Should be fixed now, see full explanation on my talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. User:Mets501 reverted my change though, because the template is used outside the user namespace as well. I did not know that.

I made an alternative suggestion Template_talk:Talkarchive#Add_Reference_to_User_and_Link_to_User_Page and asked Mets501 if that would be okay. Well, that happens if you are bold :). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talkarchive templates

I saw that you reverted my change. I did not know that the template was also used outside the user space. I appologize for that. Please have a look at my updated suggestion at Template_talk:Talkarchive#Add_Reference_to_User_and_Link_to_User_Page. Wouldn't that work for all name spaces? Let me know what you think. I don't want to create my own template for this (again), if there should be one template that works for all, that would be the best. Don't you think? Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the template talk page. Also, in the future, to see where a template is used, you can click the "What links here" link in the toolbox in the lower left corner of the sidebar when viewing the template, and every page the has the word "transclusion" next to it transcludes, or uses, the template. —METS501 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have done that. It was an oversight on my part. I will remember it for the future.

Btw. I created my own template to make archiving easier. You can find it here: User:Cumbrowski/usertalkarchivenav

and if you want to see it in action see: User_Talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 4 --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wikipedia logo50px blackbg.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia logo50px blackbg.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipedia logo50px blackbg.png

I tagged this image as a copyright violation. The wikipedia logo is not a free image, and derived versions are not permitted. Another admin will review the tag. You can place {{hangon}} on the image and leave a comment for the closing admin on the image talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with FA

Search engine optimization will run on the main page Monday! Jehochman ^Hablar 21:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice... and no problem. I also noticed that you did some work on the affiliate marketing article. btw. what do you think about the nofollow one? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-nominated affiliate marketing for "Good Article" I believe that it was improved significantly since it failed the first nomination back in March. What do you think? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Reaction (artscene group)

I have placed a {{prod}} tag on Chemical Reaction (artscene group) because I don't feel it meets notability criteria for groups/organizations. Since you created the article, I'm notifying you.-Wafulz 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template and added references to the article. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao

Dear C, I have decided to wind up altogether for the time being, and have shut down my usersite. Thanks for all your help over the past month or so, you have been a pal. (Stay away from those thunderboxes! They tend to collapse, like their human counterparts, at nothing more than a puff of wind.) Wohin? - vediamo. Dr Steven Plunkett 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.. what a surprise... what happened? Well, you are welcome, good look and say "Hallo" if you are "in town" :) Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wikipedia logo50px blackbg.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia logo50px blackbg.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a detailed description and explaination for the claims. The image is used in the User name space. I removed the template. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EComXpo

Not just a thinly disguised advert that's badly sourced, a previously deleted thinly disguised advert that's badly sourced:

A tag has been placed on EComXpo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how EComXpo is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:EComXpo saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Calton | Talk

This is not a repost. I am not even aware that an article already existed before I created it. I must admit that I did not search for one, because articles within the subject of affiliate marketing are scarse anyway. I added the article, because the article did not exist and because I think that the conference is noteworthy within the subject of affiliate marketing. Thanks for the info about the template. I added the "hangon" template underneath yours. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate Marketing

Hi Roy,

Good idea moving this discussion to user talk. I'm rather busy with school work, but I'll try to contribute to improving the article. Admittedly I hold negative opinions on some uses of affiliate programs such as this site (notice all the clickthrough links, and the rather sketchy rankings), but I realize that affiliate marketing can take many different forms and we shouldn't overemphasize the negative examples. It's great to have editors like yourself with industry experience helping out!

— xDanielx ^T/_C 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you and I make cases of abuse public. Like this Wikipedia SPAM [2], this behavior by a service provider [3], this blog spammer [4] or this very tricky track-back spammer [5].

Those are only a few examples. The article to affiliate marketing talks about a number of those issues. The spamming, the AdWare among other things. Also the fact that there is no self regulating body and that law makers are far behind and not knowledgeable to create laws and rules that govern this industry. Everybody is free to do what he wants to do, (still) legally, but completely unethically, taking full advantage of this lack of general accepted and enforced rules.

The article used to have only the negative things in it. It was greatly expanded and draws a much more realistic picture of the subject. However, there are a lot more things that are relevant, but you can't stuff this complex multi-billion dollar and international industry into a single article. There is in general very little content to the subject in Wikipedia. I added a bunch of stuff, but incidents like the recent one take a lot of my time (which I actually don't have) away from being productive.

Debate is fine and I have no problem to live with what comes out of it, regardless if I like the decisions made or not. Some articles were deleted and I see the point why they were deleted. Not all of them should have, but there were clearly not enough references used, to to make this clear to an industry outsider. It makes me realize that it does not mean anything, if everybody in the industry knows and thinks the same about something, if you can't show a stranger why that is the case. It takes some more research to find those reliable sources, especially if you don't read a lot of mainstream media. The amount of blogs does not help the problem and only adds to it instead, because those are not considered reliable sources (for good reasons, not all blogs, but the majority) that can be used as reference. The real ones are often burried in a huge cloud of noise and clutter.

I wanted to write a post for one of the blogs I write for (for free) about an internal industry issue that was discussed during the trade show I attended this week. Well the problem here did take a lot of time away from it, but I think that this case is an important example for how to deal with behavior shown by this guy. If he gets away with it, Wikipedia will get issues that could cause its destruction. Consider the lessons you can learn here at Wikipedia as a valuable lesson for the real world, both, the good ones and bad ones.

I hope that you will also learn more practical things that will help you in the future. Internet marketing is becoming bigger and more important over the coming years, so you can learn more about that at the same time, if you are interested in a career in this industry, in internet marketing in general or if you have the plan to start your own business rather than to work for a salary for somebody else.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/eComXpo, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Cerejota 05:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendit, why did you not tell me how to do this a day earlier? Since you are finally open for discussions, See my propsal. If you are really interested in a consensus, then you will be delighted by this proposal. You will ignore or reject it of course, if your mediation request was not honest and is only part of WP:GAME. I would like to be wrong. But lets actions speak for themselves, shall we? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetradraw

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Tetradraw, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whispe ring 11:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TundraDraw

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article TundraDraw, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whispe ring 12:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/eComXpo.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 04:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Searchenginestrategies.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Searchenginestrategies.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]