User talk:Toxicwitch
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Hall.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Hall.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Hall, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Hall[edit]
Hello Toxicwitch. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Geoff Hall".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Hall}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin Let's talk! 15:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Link SPAM[edit]
Sorry, but this account appears to be here to include massive links to one site for the purposes of promotion. This is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines. These links should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Objective3000 - I was adding links to tools that are legitimately useful to Wikipedia readers and anyone interested in the mathematics of casino gambling. A lot of resources have been put into the development of these tools and they've literally just been put online. As such the additions have all come at one time. New tools, new site. I'm more than open to conversations about the usefulness of the suggested tools if you have questions or doubts, but would ask that you actually look at the tools provided before making sweeping judgments. I'm confident that you have a solid understanding of gaming mathematics, if you are the published author and software developer I think you are, so you should be able to verify the quality of the resources in question. I'm also very confident that these resources are likely to improve rather than detract from the user experience that these Wikipedia pages provide. Toxicwitch (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
That may very well be true. But, the pattern of your edits strongly suggests that the purpose of the account is solely promotional. Eventually someone will notice and the account is likely to be closed for running up against rather a lot of guidelines. See WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:LINKSPAM, WP:PROMO Objective3000 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I can accept that though it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to remove tools that would improve Wikipedia, making the information on Wiki weaker rather than stronger, simply to meet guidelines. If that's the way this has to be done however I'd ask your help/guidance on the best way to go about it? I'm not going to pretend I'm a regular Wikipedia contributor, and nor would I pretend that part of the motivation for inclusion of these tools isn't self promotion. Of course we want to make people aware of the resources we've made available. However this has been approached as a mutually beneficial project rather than a link building exercise. If you look through the edits made yesterday, where there were already links to other resources similar to the ones we've developed the links to those resources haven't been altered/removed and I didn't include additional links to our own. Focus was placed on only including links if/where we have something that's worthy of inclusion and avoiding anything that could be considered questionable.
- The bottom line is that we have resources that it would actually improve Wiki articles to include. If you feel that I've gone about this in the wrong way I'd be very grateful if you could provide insight as to the best way to go about this. Toxicwitch (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- There really isn't a right way. WP is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. It's designed to document based on WP:RS. The guidelines seem arcane. But, they are necessary to ensure the project remains true to he concept of an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
That approach would seem to place the letter of the 'guidelines' (note the meaning of the word) ahead of 'remain[ing] true' to the 'concept of an encyclopedia', or put another way, ahead of achieving what the guidelines intend. You're actively saying that you would remove the links, despite knowing they add value simply to meet guidelines? I appreciate that the system can be abused, but enforcing the guidelines in a scenario where you can objectively see that they're not being abused would seem to undermine the very system you're trying to protect?
We're both well aware of what constitutes 'spam' and 'link farms', I'm not sure you're being totally objective if you're still insisting that's what's going on here, despite accepting the value of the resource being suggested. If you're actively saying that you don't trust the integrity of the resource that's a different story. Toxicwitch (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I understand the frustration. But, I have seen the argument that you are giving from people new to WP a hundred times at least. It never works. I also don't know if these calculators give meaningful and correct answers. Not trying to be insulting. I just don't know. You should also read WP:ADV. Objective3000 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, again I can accept that. If I'm correct about who you are I'd very much appreciate it if you'd take a look at the tools (we're specifically very proud of the VP strategy trainers ;) ). You are one of a small number of people in the world actually capable of assessing the worth of tools like these. If you could do this and drop me an email I'll be happy to give you any background regarding the development of the tools. I ask this not to 'win' this argument, I won't undo any of the edits that have been made to remove references and I don't expect you to either way, but I do value your opinion and it would be meaningful to me to have any feedback you could offer. No need for further response here to either confirm or refute who I think you are and regardless, all the best. Toxicwitch (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)