User talk:Nelson50/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fluka

I have nothing to promote, just to inform that the program is using the Monte Carlo Code. Did you need to COMPLETELY remove the entry? Why just you don't remove the external link? It is loss of information not to include it there, since you are including GEANT and SRIM!!!!!!

137.138.123.40 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo

Hi I can understand why you have taken out the links on the Nintendo page but I think that they are ok.

The website in question is putting up a collection of history articles first published in a computer magazine and they would be otherwise lost.

They have aprox 100 articles on various history topics and I thought I'd add the ones that are about topics that need some additons on Wikipedia. The site does have some advertising but the books that appear are futher reading and on topic.

This is in no way any sort of attempt at SEO - as you say there are no-follow links so what is the point. My intention was to point readers interested in the topic to further material on the same topic. I thought that posting the occational external link to on topic articles would be a way to find out about Wikipedia editing etc... help and advice please? (I didn't put this on the Nintendo talk page because it seems to be a more general issue.) Mbryantuk (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your note. Have a look at the guidelines for what should be linked and what should be considered here. While this is not blatant, it does fail on a few tests. Specifically, if all one hundered articles in the iProgrammer site were to be linked, that would be a problem. Links to be avoided include "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". So the best way to include the information, which I agree is valuable, would be to re-write it as a contribution to the Wikipedia article. The other big no-no is if you have a connection to the linked site, see WP:COI for more. I hope this all makes sense. Feel free to ask more. Best regards Nelson50^T 08:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and yes I never realised it would be this complicated.
I don't have a connection to the site apart from being a friend of one of the writers of the orignal articles and an interest in computer history (amonth other things). So does that mean I have a "connection"?
As to rewriting - the problem seems to be that the original copyright is with the magazine who published the articles and while the author is unlikely to be sued by the magazine (such things don't happen) I could well be!
I have got permission to use one of the articles (the one on SWTP) as the basis for a Wikipedia article as there doesn't seem to be one on the subject but most of the other articles would have to be woven into the existing Wikipedia pages and I'm not at all sure this would produce something better. There status as "further reading" seems much more solid.
I have to admit to being a bit confused and not sure what to do next. I guess my simple plan to "post some external links" to find out how it all works was a good one. Many thanks for your efforts to educate me but it all seems too fraught with shades of grey and suspicions of spam.
In many ways it would be easier if spam was defined according to the content/relevancy of what was posted rather than who posted something. That is at the moment if you post a link to the article (i.e. the one you deleted) it probably isn't a spam link but if I do it could well be. Strange idea.... Mbryantuk (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tripadvisor

Nelson,

Why have you taken out the board of directors listing for Trip Advisor? This information is strictly informational and should be included on the page. While I believe you are misinterpreting my inclusion of links for spam or soliscitation, because I am including them for informational purposes, I will accept your changes pertaining to tghe links to avoid the back and forth. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving conversation to Trip Advisor talk page. Nelson50^T 09:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• The content on the website features section is in the public domain and is public information. The whole point of of the fact seet page is to provide information to the public. The information on the fact sheet is not copyrighted and is thus not a copyright violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.246.79 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nelsom, how are you? Why would I have to work ona new version of the article and not just make changes to the current page? When I made changes, they didnt go through... please advise.. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm fine. It's all to do with the template and tagging process. Once the section is tagged it's not supposed to be edited until an administrator has decided on the issue. During this decision process it wouldn't do to have the content changing so that's why you were reverted. The "new article" option is included to allow editors submit copy that is free of infringements on a separate page. In the event that the copy violation is upheld and the original version permanently deleted, the new copy can be slotted in. Hoping this makes sense. PS, please remember to use four tildes ~~~~ to sign your posts. Nelson50^T 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mobile VoIP

Nelson,

I understand your decision to remove the link, but the link was related to the topic and truly adds to the understanding of the reader. I do not want to challenge your decision, but just wanted to highlight that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VoIPExpert (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Population templates

Hi Nelson - rather than delete the templates would it be possible to add |state=collapsed while we try to establish contact with the editor? Sarah777 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - thanks for the question. Timely too as I was off for my dinner but had the user contribs page still open, ready to resume! The view I took was over the issue of redlinks. This editor is obviously experienced, and edits in a very prepared manner with individual and distinct edits ready to be pasted in one minute apart. Given he or she know the system well but does not engage and uses multiple SPAs beggars the question "Qui bono - who benefits?". Creating hundreds of redlinks to a yet-to-be-written article on a UCD Professor, where there are three unlinked notable authors framed my choices. So here's the view I took: edits later than Censusfan had fewer redlinks and many were reverted already. I approached the Censusfan edits and if they added a redlink reverted them. If I found an edit that did not include a redlink, i.e. just the data and reference, I left it. If I found an article where I could make other edits, I made those edits and did add the state=collapsed parameter. In fairness, I should point out that I think that only happened once with Suncroft. I didn't get any feedback to my contribution here and would welcome a view on my logic. I'll hold off on more reverts for now. BTW, I have huge admiration for the editors that are cleaning up after this guy/gal, but reckon we should do more to hold this serial SPA to account. What do you think? Nelson50^T 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I grow weary of this editor. No less than six new manifestations tonight. And he is removing collapsed templates and restoring the full horror. Maybe yerself and Ww are correct: shoot on sight.

• 01:29 Navan‎ (diff; hist) . . (+923) . . Navan Anuaimh (talk | contribs) (demographics 100pc increase in ten years)
• 01:26 Rathangan, County Kildare‎ (diff; hist) . . (+843) . . Prosperous Pikeman (talk | contribs) (Population growth details)
• 01:26 Prosperous, County Kildare‎ (diff; hist) . . (+830) . . Prosperous Pikeman (talk | contribs) (demographics popualation explosion)
• 01:21 Longford‎ (diff; hist) . . (+869) . . Drumlish Danny (talk | contribs) (population growth details)
• 01:19 Letterkenny‎ (diff; hist) . . (+841) . . Drumlish Danny (talk | contribs) (demographics)
• 01:16 Kilrush‎ (diff; hist) . . (+858) . . Labhras Raghallaigh (talk | contribs) (stair meideach)
• 01:13 Kilcullen‎ (diff; hist) . . (+838) . . Straight Iwillrepair (talk | contribs) (history extra detail)
• 01:12 Castledermot‎ (diff; hist) . . (+837) . . Straight Iwillrepair (talk | contribs) (history extra detail)
• 01:11 Kill, County Kildare‎ (diff; hist) . . (+837) . . Straight Iwillrepair (talk | contribs) (history extra detail)
• 01:08 Cobh‎ (diff; hist) . . (+839) . . Granuaile Unveiled (talk | contribs) (history)

Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nenagh

Hi. Can you explain why you removed the census data from this page? I was going to revert but saw you were a reg editor and assumed you had a good reason but I don't understand your shorthand explanation. It seems to me that the census info adds key information on the historical development of the town which could then be referred to in the main text. Lack of info in this area was identified as a reason for fail in a Good Article application.

--Gramscis cousin^Talk_Stalk 08:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for visiting. There's a whole conversation about the contributor who added that data here. His edits were disrupting article formatting and adding a redlink. He made hundreds of edits using multiple sockpuppets. Some editors reverted him while others just collapsed the table. Once or twice I also did this when the the reference did not include the redlink. If you think the data is relevant to the article, please re-add as a collapsed table (you'll see how to do this at the Ireland project page linked above). Also, please remove the redlink from the reference. Thanks Nelson50^T 13:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Commercial links

Nelson, I see you are doing some good work identifying spammy links. It's a subject that I keep coming across on small village and town articles. Generally I leave links about sports clubs, schools, community centres, churches and "local websites". But there are gray areas and the plethora of links to individual shops and pubs and other commercial businesses I remove. Do we need some sort of formal guidelines about this? A Golf course is an amenity in a way a shop isn't - but where to draw the lines? Sarah777 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I generally leave anything that's mainly community-based - i.e. the local tourist web-site. But if it's a paid directory or similar I zap it. Also, I don't mind the local sports clubs - Ballybunion golf or Kilkenny hurling, but if it's Ardee Karate club or whatever, then no (And I have nothing against Ardee!). In any event, a few links might be useful, long lists as per WP:EL are a no-no. I've found that a reasonable approach works with most editors. Sometimes, they make an argument that, while not compelling, may have *just* enough merit to maintain the link. Trying to codify this *particularly* for an Irish audience, might be too much work. Nelson50^T 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: fiber to the x

I took care of it. I Reverted my edits. Everything should be back up. Sorry for the inconvenience.--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Trim, County Meath

That's cool. It was the lack of any explanation that set off my "whoa there!" sensor. --Geniac (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3