User talk:Beetstra: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:18, 22 February 2008 editBeetstra (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators172,031 edits →gtj.org.uk links: P.S.← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:20, 22 February 2008 edit undo76.244.162.118 (talk) →Mr. Deeds Goes to Town Next edit →
Line 144:		Line 144:
	:::When I get my Pulitzer I'll post it here. Let's see if Bzuk can figure out if it's right side up or not.--] (]) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)		:::When I get my Pulitzer I'll post it here. Let's see if Bzuk can figure out if it's right side up or not.--] (]) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Image removed as it is prohibited from use outside of mainspace. Discussion continues on the "talk page" of the article. FWIW ] (]) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC).		::::Image removed as it is prohibited from use outside of mainspace. Discussion continues on the "talk page" of the article. FWIW ] (]) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

			:::::Dear D. Beetstra: Bzuk himself acknowledges that he has made an error on Misplaced Pages by posting the 666 image on your talk page. He says in the above post that he was prohibited from posting it here as it's "outside of mainspace." If it was outside of mainspace, then why did he do that? He wasn't supposed to, or the image would still be here. Or does Bzuk continuously make mistakes on Misplaced Pages? Does Bzuk make up his own rules as he goes along? I think this whole matters deserves your attention, as Bzuk appears to be concealing evidence of a great discovery. And Bzuk continues his allegations of talk page abuse on the movie site. There are no posts on Bzuk's talk page, as he deletes everything he finds objectionable. You are gracious enough to allow intelligent discussion on your page, I ask you not to submit to Bzuk's frivolous accusations any longer. His above posting and removal prove his inconsistency with Truth, Justice, and The American Way.--] (]) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	== User:Beetstra/Chemicals ==		== User:Beetstra/Chemicals ==

Revision as of 18:20, 22 February 2008

Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here
and please don't forget to sign your post

You may want to have a look at the subjects
in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject.
The question you may have may already have been answered there
Dirk Beetstra


Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #208

I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN.
COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

Responding

I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me.

I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header.

ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL

There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first.

My view in a nutshell:
External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia.

Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines).

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information').
Add an appropriate linkfarm (you can consider to remove other links covered there).
Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects.
Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this)

If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point.

The answer in a nutshell
Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines.

If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel .

Reliable sources

I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong.

Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page

Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs.

Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert

I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog.

Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.

Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda

This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot.

Archives

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Timestamped threads older than 7 days are automatically archived to the current archive

Talk started 20/3/2006

COIBot Report for User Alexander Gamauf

Greetings! I am user on German Misplaced Pages, German Wiktionary and on Wikimedia Commons. I'm often listed as a possible spammer in

The reason for these linkages on the German wiktionary is citing example sentences how to use a specific word. So it does'nt make sense to put those things on the watchlists. On the other hand i understand the meaning of this COIBot. Can you put me on the global Whitelist only for the Wiki projects listed above? If not please insert my user name generally. Many greetings from Vienna (Austria). - 88.117.77.253 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the clarification. I have globally whitelisted you, removed the links from the monitoring lists and protected against monitoring again. These are fine links which should be used (though for those users who do have a conflict of interest the bots will still report). Regeneration of these four reports is on the way (the bot has been commanded to do that, could take a bit of time until it finishes the queue), on these reports your name should have a strike-through (if I programmed everything correct ..).

Again, thanks for this note, relieves us of some work and makes the bots work faster in the end! Vriendelijke groet uit Cardiff. --Dirk Beetstra 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

help please...

Hello Beetstra.

I started a user account as a fan of a company and named myself f an cycles as the company is called motor cycles. As a result I descovered that I have made the page going into a link spam context as my name is close to the company name and I put a website link to their company website, so I changed my name to use my real name to maybe help the problem?

But I see the blacklisting of the link is present still. What shall I do to help or can you help? I did mean no harm. I also uploaded an image which is incorrect logo for them and I don't know how to take it away now.

Thank you very much if you could help.

JzoJames— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzoJames (talk • contribs)

I have removed the link from the monitor list and deleted the report. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Beestra now this has helped. Much appreciated JzoJames —Preceding comment was added at 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

hi

Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Misplaced Pages. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)

Fact: Circumcision is believed to decrease a man's risk of getting HIV Fact: Circmcision is believed to INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia, and some think even other STD's.

The article on "circumcision" mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my ONE sentence I want to add? Thanks here's the New York Times article... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y

I used to love Misplaced Pages until I wanted to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is typically something that you have to discuss on the talkpage of the page Talk:Circumcision. If consensus is reached there, then that sentence can be added. Though I think that this should be backed-up by an academic source. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 15:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, help...

Hello Beetstra,

we exchanged letters in October last year, after you (and one other editor) removed a number of external links we had put in from some artists' sites pointing to www.terminartors.com . Although we disagreed your opinion about the link being spam we instantly discontinued to put in external links. Unfortunately, if you type "www.terminartors.com" to Google the "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/terminartors.com..." article still appears on the first page as a hit. We would really appreciate if you helped us in this respect by deleting that article. I guess, we have now a clearer understanding about the policies on the English, lesson learned. Thank you in advance, Abenhakan. Abenhakan (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the link is not spam, it was the way you and your wife were adding the links. I think the reports do provide wikipedians who try to write an encyclopedia here with some on-hands information on how this link was used (which is available from the database anyway, and there also is an, now archived, item on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam. Earlier discussions on deletion of such reports generally result in that the records are kept, and I am inclined to follow that ruling. --Dirk Beetstra 15:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whitelisting

Please whitelist my user name of Historian 1000 for articles containing history or historic in the title. I was put on your spam list for a redirect of Prehistoric diet because of the name overlap. This, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with spam. Here is the link # 06:38:26, Fri Feb 01, 2008 - user:Historian 1000 (contribs; 1/1) scores 53.84% (U->P) & 46.66% (P->U) (ratio: 25.1%) on calculated overlap Historian 1000 <-> Prehistoric diet (Prehistoric diet - diff - COIBot UserReport) Also, would you remove the entry from the spam report. I remember reading that these were reviewed manually but this has seemingly not occurred in this case. --Historian 1000 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot is not only for spam, it attempts to catch edits which may be in conflict with policies or guidelines. But indeed, in your case there is nothing of that, pure accidental overlap. I have whitelisted you completely, as your username will create alerts for everything relating to history. Thanks for the remark! --Dirk Beetstra 09:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

whitelisting

Please provide whitelisting on www.micro-dots.org. Appears user name conflict error occured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.199.184 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not so sure. There seems to be one editor who only adds this link, and judging the few edits, this may very well be promotional in nature (it links to a company homepage, not to a third-party document giving the explanation, the homepage does not state give any information, there may be documents on the server which does give more appropriate information). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Marylandartsource.com

I noticed, in the page listing links to the Hans Schuler article, that your bot recently labeled links to marylandartsource.com as "spam". That is preposterous. Marylandartsource could not be a more legitimate, noncommercial, nonprofit, public information resource. Marylandartsource.com (also .org) is a website offering public information on Maryland artists. It is maintained by and therefore carries the authority of the following institutions: the Baltimore Museum of Art; the Enoch Pratt Free Library; Johns Hopkins University; the Maryland Institute College of Art; the Maryland Historical Society; the Maryland State Department of Education; the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; and the Walters Art Museum . If your bot is labeling links to such sources as spam, maybe the code needs to be rewritten. Or maybe you could dispense with your nifty "bots" and try actually reading articles instead. MdArtLover (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, links are not defined as spam, the bot is not defining links as spam, spam is the way links are added to wikipedia, and the bot is designed to pick up links where there are or may be concerns with the way they are added. That is also explained in the template at the top of the reports.

In this case it is a case of mistaken overlap, I have whitelisted accordingly. And please, before attacking the work that actually is performed by the people monitoring spam and similar, try keeping up with all the edits (>100 edits per minute) and external links that get added (>50 per minute), then please understand that all bots here make mistakes, and the operators do their best to minimize the damage. --Dirk Beetstra 11:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sending out your bot to make nonsensical edits wasted lots of my time, and now some of yours. If the bot is this dumb, it's just a gimmick. So you "save" a dozens of minutes by plugging your bot in and let it rip - but then dozens of people have to waste 10 or 15 or 20 minutes minutes each trying to figure out the nonsense that's been done and where to leave an explanation/protest, and then composing replies with lots of links and prolix explanations. Why should I pretend to respect this absurd and irresponsible obstructionism? MdArtLover (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to our IRC channel to see how much true rubbish this bot catches. It is indeed unfortunate that I have to spend so much time on cleaning up true rubbish that gets added (time that I otherwise could have spent better!), and I take a couple of mistakes by my bot for granted if that results in a better encyclopedia. That is why I am actually quite happy when people tell me that it made a mistake, so I don't have to waste more time on that. The reports now contain a header which leads them quickly to the operator of the bot, and it should only take a couple of seconds to post a remark that the bot makes a mistake. I saw 2 yesterday, but days go by without mistakes. Thanks for the cooperation. --Dirk Beetstra 10:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side remark, that a site contains good information, is a reliable source by a respected organisation does by no means mean that it can not be added in an inappropriate way! Companies, governments and other organisations do sometimes have a way of using wikipedia to improve the traffic to their site, even while other users are using it appropriate. One of such sites just got blacklisted because the owner just pushed it over the edge. And yes, it is unfortunate that we need hands full of tools to catch that! Again, I invite you to help us by doing it all on sight. Thanks again. --Dirk Beetstra 10:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides whitelist

SandyGeorgia just mentioned that I've been put on the Spam/COI list, and said it had happened to her a while back and she got whitelisted. Like SandyGeorgia, I'm editing medical pages, and apparently got put on the list because I added the following citation to two autism-related articles:

Klin A (2006). "Autism and Asperger syndrome: an overview". Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 28 (Suppl 1): S3–11. PMID 16791390.

This article is a high-quality scientific review paper, and is referenced by Misplaced Pages because (unlike similar papers) it is freely readable. User:COIBot#Whitelist said that in cases like these I should strike out my name and notify you, so I struck out my name and am now asking: Can you please whitelist me? I imagine that if I got put on a Spam/COI list once by that robot, it'll happen to me again. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirming same; Eubulides has three featured articles, and that is a high-quality link. Can he be whitelisted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have whitelisted you, removed the link from monitoring (it was caught mistakenly), protected the link against automonitoring and deleted the report. Thanks for the explanation about the link, whitelisting such links makes the bot more efficient. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 11:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Beetstra! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need Some Help, Thanks.

Hi Beestra,

I've apparently made it on the blacklist for Spamming. My intentions were not to SPAM wikipedia, but only to offer related and helpful information. I'm new to the Misplaced Pages game, so I think I'm more aware of the code of conduct now than I did before. I just hate being blacklisted for my ignorance, if there is anyway I can get those removed, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks.

-Revisitingnixon— Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisitingnixon (talk • contribs)

I am not sure what link(s) you are talking about. Could you tell me exactly what links you tried to add (if they are blocked by the spam-filter, then leave out the 'http://' so they don't result in a working link)? More general, there are many places where external links are discussed, see the whole, or specific sections in: Misplaced Pages:External links, Misplaced Pages:Spam, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Copyright, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. If you believe the links are of interest, try discussing on the talkpage of the page you want to add the link to, or contact a wikiproject (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. The report is on this URL... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/ehow.com Can you explain if the my account has been blacklisted and how do I clear the slate in the report, because I would prefer the username to not appear on google searches. Sorry for the inconvenience as I said I'm new to the wikipedia game, so I'll be careful next time. Thanks.- Revisitingnixon

Not sure if you got my last comment

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Beetstra" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisitingnixon (talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see, I thought it was that site. Well, I see that your main contributions are adding external links (to different sections), and you seem to be involved in the ehow.com sites (see diff). You do seem to have a conflict of interest here, and since we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm.

Links to ehow.com are often in violation of one or more of our policies and or guidelines, per the list I linked above (again: Misplaced Pages:External links, Misplaced Pages:Spam, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Copyright, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not). That is why we are monitoring all additions of that site, and many of them get either blacklisted on on automatic revert lists (note: it does not mean that the site is spam, but that there are often concerns with who and with the way it gets added).

If you however believe that the links do add to the pages, then I suggest that you discuss the addition on the talkpages (per all of the linked policies and guidelines), and let uninvolved, established editors add the site if consensus says it should be linked. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 10:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

It was thoughtful of you to revert the 666 reference in Mr. Deeds, but someone has already undone your good deed (pun), citing it as being "nonsense." That's where the YouTube link was important; it's not nonsense, it's really there.

Have you ever seen anyone mention this symbol in any discussion of Mr. Deeds? I haven't, either, and this may be a good example why. Misplaced Pages users always delete things they don't like, but in this case the proof of its validity was given, that being the YouTube clip. Have you watched it? I have, the symbol 666 can be seen at exactly 2:20. I think the YouTube link and the reference should be put back into the Mr. Deeds article and then it should be page protected. Can you do that?

What to do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.249 (talk • contribs)

Youtube is inappropriate there, it is not reliable (is the movie original, is it a proper interpretation of what can be seen, and I hope the movie on Youtube is not copyvio). Please refer to the original movie, and give a reference from a reliable source to back up the claim. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. The location symbol is found on VHS and DVD copies of the original movie; is that acceptable? The location can be referenced on those. And, are movie goers reliable sources here? You'll notice that the person who reverted your revert on Mr. Deeds states that he is a reliable source. I don't think that term applies to him anymore.

This is obviously an important discovery, in light of the McCarthyism and use of subliminal suggestion that came from the era that Mr. Deeds was made. How are you going to end this censorship of Mr. Deeds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.249 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is time to start a discussion on the talkpage. The edit does not go without controversy apparently, so it is time to discuss it first. --Dirk Beetstra 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there was mention already made on the "Discussion" page. No one's responded, it's discussion in name only. And that's the thing about Misplaced Pages admin, they just perfunctorily delete anything that displeases them whether it's truthful or not. That type of censorship is true vandalism at times, the crime not the input from your Misplaced Pages users. I think the chopping block of the other involved admin speaks this rather well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.249 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is unreferenced, and you can't find appropriate sources to back it up, then yes, then waiting for a positive response on the talkpage is maybe appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I could call the studio and ask someone there, that'd be a reference. But I've watched the YouTube video, and have seen the same symbol in the movies I've rented. So, I know I'm a reference, but not an important one. But now Bzuk has place a block threat on my anon user page warning me off any more "vandalism." So, see how censorship works? And if I do contact the studio, they could also cut out the scene from future DVD releases. They'll have gotten away with something again.

Alright, I'll call the studio and get the person's name who answers the phone. And I'll post it here. Will that be a reference? But my guess is this is how a Pulitzer fight starts. How many Pulitzer Prizes have been lost and deleted by censors like Bzuk? Have you ever seen anyone talk anywhere at all about the 666 symbol in Mr. Deeds? Could that have been used one way or another in all of the Hollywood blacklisting wars? Well, not now!--76.212.146.249 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bee, this is the image: thumb|screenshot This is the contentious frame that the editor has claimed is a satanic image with "666". If you believe that – first of all, it is upside down doodles that look more like "999" and what about the "333" symbol in the hair? FWIW, I didn't think the "666" claim warranted anything other than a removal as it was nonsensical. However, the wholly inappropriate comments left on the talk pages was my real concern. Bzuk (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC).

And I'd like to ask the obvious question that seems to be missed a lot: Yes, that's 999 as the picture sits. But is the doodle a face? Then the mouth is English writing that is upside down. If you spin the doodle around, it's in English, the last word "Hall" with more strings of numbers after it. And then, what do you find? The 999 symbol is now 666! Why hasn't anyone else mentioned this, I'd like to ask? And what is nonsensical about this? It's an easy observation. And it's right there for anyone to see. I didn't make the movie, I don't think any of these Misplaced Pages admins made it, so what's the beef? There it is in the image Bzuk posted here, plain as day. This has turned into a argument worse than the one they had on the Criticism of Mormonism page, where they talked about the thing in 3 Nephi 11:11. All that got deleted, too, even though the typo was there for all to see. Some things can't be denied, for all of admin's efforts.

--76.248.229.104 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous. As far as I see this now, you are the only one claiming this, do you have any sources (outside wikipedia) to back up your interpretations (from reliable sources, of course)?? --Dirk Beetstra 10:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dirk Beetstra: Yes, it seems that I am the only one here who sees that 999 is 666 upside down. I thought any grade schooler could see that, as when you knock your homework off of your desk and bend down to pick it up, you notice that 9's are simply 6's upside down. But what an effort made by Misplaced Pages to discredit this! 6's aren't 9's here! Sideways lower case m's aren't 3's! And you were the only admin that was lenient towards this, but now by your dear john post, I see that you have had an about face.

So, since no Wikipedian will credit their own eyes as reliable sources, and since they say that mine are not reliable sources (hence eliciting the remark that no Misplaced Pages admin would ever be my attorney or representative in any matter, life or death or traffic ticket, which is not a rude or untoward statement at all), I will find your admins a reliable source. I'll get right on it, and I'll get back to you later. Then we will replace the 666 reference on the movie's Wiki page.

And in the meantime, please post your interpretation of what the handwriting is where the doodle's mouth would be. The last word is "Hall," the numbers "67440" or something. And please verify the writing's appearance. Is it upside down in your perception, is it upside down as the picture appears to the movie goer, or is it right side up? Don't you agree that this is very important? Does this blast Bzuk's 999 contention right off of your monitor?

When I get my Pulitzer I'll post it here. Let's see if Bzuk can figure out if it's right side up or not.--76.244.162.118 (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image removed as it is prohibited from use outside of mainspace. Discussion continues on the "talk page" of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Dear D. Beetstra: Bzuk himself acknowledges that he has made an error on Misplaced Pages by posting the 666 image on your talk page. He says in the above post that he was prohibited from posting it here as it's "outside of mainspace." If it was outside of mainspace, then why did he do that? He wasn't supposed to, or the image would still be here. Or does Bzuk continuously make mistakes on Misplaced Pages? Does Bzuk make up his own rules as he goes along? I think this whole matters deserves your attention, as Bzuk appears to be concealing evidence of a great discovery. And Bzuk continues his allegations of talk page abuse on the movie site. There are no posts on Bzuk's talk page, as he deletes everything he finds objectionable. You are gracious enough to allow intelligent discussion on your page, I ask you not to submit to Bzuk's frivolous accusations any longer. His above posting and removal prove his inconsistency with Truth, Justice, and The American Way.--76.244.162.118 (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Beetstra/Chemicals

Hi. I have recently been granted a bot account for User:Comics-awb. I have stumbled across your page and notice the script you have there for chemistry article clean up. I hadn't realised it was possible to create such scripts for awb, but am now interested in doing something similar for comics articles. I'm not asking you to write a script for me, but just looking for pointers on how to start and where to begin. Is there a primer or an annotated guide somewhere? Apologies if I am missing something obvious. Appreciate any pointers you can provide. Hiding T 14:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have written everything myself with some extensive knowledge of regex. AWB can do a lot, it is just a matter of finding the right sequence to do things, and to find proper ways of excluding certain things. Some small changes need a couple of find-and-replace actions.

I am not sure what you want to try, are you planning to replacing boxes with new boxes? Then this is about the sequence to use for that:

First get rid of 'rubbish'.
Replace error-prone stuff with something to protect it.
Then try to find the fields with regexes, and place them inbetween tags which are all similar in structure (using e.g. hidden tags:  and ).
Then you can 'sort' the levels by finding structures as (data part 1)(data part 2) and replace that with (data part 2)(data part 1). If you repeat that action often enough it results in the data being sorted appropriately.
Then you can again remove the tag-parts ..  is the end of block 1 and beginning of block 2;  is just a separator in datablock 3.
Replace the protected stuff back.

Remember that this is all far from fool-proof. It has to be run in either by hand, edit by edit, carefully checking. Or you need a team (that was the way this script was run in the end) that checks behind every bot-edit. Many go without error, but every now and then there is another thing that makes things fail (you can't imagine what formatting some editors add to some fields).

Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're looking at getting stuff tagged for work groups within wiki-project comics, and I'm trying to work out a way of catching new ones once the first run has been done. Thanks for the tips, though, it's given me a place to start. Hiding T 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Link History Page

Is there a way to get my history removed from this page? My username is showing up on the site, and it's a username I use on other sites. I was wondering if I can get a clean slate. The URL in question is here... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/ehow.com Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisitingnixon (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are still here in the history of the server, there is no way to remove those, and they can just as easily be retrieved (see e.g. this link and this link). Seen your history with the ehow.com links, I am reluctant to whitelist you there, there were/are concerns with those edits. You were notified on the 31st of October, just after your first 2 edits that there were concerns with your edits, and still you continued and recieved more warnings. If you manage to remove your edits from wikipedia, then indeed it is fair to also remove them from the database, but I think that oversight will not do that. --Dirk Beetstra 10:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Add to spam/COI list

Beetstra, can you have a look at Gnif global (talk · contribs)'s contribs, GNIF Brain Blogger, Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation and add these two links to the spam list? http://www.brainblogger.com and http://www.nutritionj.com/content/7/1/2 (both published by GNIF, see http://brainblogger.com/about/) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks a bit spammy, indeed. I have inserted them into COIBot, lets monitor. It looks like a real journal, but seems to be quite COI. --Dirk Beetstra 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the authors of the Nutrition journal article are GNIF, and I'm not sure if it's a peer-reviewed journal; checking with others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure either, it's articles do have a doi, which suggests it is official. Still, only adding links to their own site would also be a WP:SPAM/WP:COI-violation. It feels indeed like the account is either Shaheen Lakhan or Ray McIntyre. --Dirk Beetstra 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, seems likely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I put the right tag at Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation‎? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

gtj.org.uk links

Hi Dirk

Thanks for the message regarding the addition of external links to Misplaced Pages. Please accept my apologies - I believed that the links in question would be beneficial to Misplaced Pages as well as the Gathering the Jewels project in that they improve the overall user experience. Gathering the Jewels is public-funded and it aims to bring together digital images of items of historical and cultural interest from museums, libraries and archives across Wales. It is not commercial, its targets are not based on stats and the website's google ratings are satisfactory. Of course, we are always looking to bring new users to our site, but the primary aims are merely to raise awareness and promote the heritage and culture of Wales and to be a valuable learning resource to internet users. Unfortunately, the copyright agreement does not allow the use of images on other sites. As the pages linked were directly relevant to the articles on Misplaced Pages and that the images are not to be found elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, I didn't believe that there would be any objection to their inclusion.

Kind regards Dafydd (Culturenut), 17:10 22 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturenut (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dafydd. Thanks for the remarks. The problem is that you seem to have a conflict of interest, which discourages adding those links yourself. Too bad you can't upload the images, but that happens more often. I guess you could find yourself a suitable wikiproject, and see what they suggest. If they endorse your link-additions, and you make sure that you make that clear (e.g. on your userpage), and do that responsibly (also help where possible with content, take care that there are not too many links on a page (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY), then I think this issue is resolved. Give me a shout when there are some positive sounds from an appropriate wikiproject, then I can remove the links from watchlists, and whitelist you, our bots now will alert us on every addition. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. to sign, end your remark (on talkpages only!) with four tildes (like ~~~~), when you save the page, it will automatically convert to your signature, with a date, and Sinebot will leave you alone. --Dirk Beetstra 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC))