User talk:swaq

This is Swaq's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Please Sign

Good Job finding my Secret Page. Please sign my Guest Book. Click on Guest Book to sign. --RyRy5 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with adding a VERIFIED reference?

I don't understand why you're saying I cannot add a verified Wikipedia reference to the external links section. It specifically links to the character database on MyAnimeList. Please explain why you think this is 'advertising' or 'spam' as you put it. Thanks. Ggyssler (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typically Wikipedia avoids external links except to official sites. The guidelines to external linking are here: Wikipedia:External links. If you want to use the links as a reference/source I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Citing sources. swaq 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, see #1 and #10 of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. The pages you linked to do not necessarily provide additional information beyond what the Wikipedia article could contain and it could be classified as a social networking and/or fan site. By the way, I don't think you intended the links as advertising or spam, but that was the closest warning template I could find. swaq 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that you should avoid linking to your own websites, as it is a conflict of interest. From your user name I'm assuming you are Garrett Gyssler, the owner of MyAnimeList. swaq 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't assume things. We all know what happens when you do that. Thanks for the help though. Ggyssler (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I stated my assumption, instead of just silently assuming. You're welcome! =) swaq 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment ~~below~~above why you're saying I cannot add a verified Wikipedia reference to the external links section. It specifically links to relevant content. Please ecplain why you see this as spamming or in fact advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAR Online (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links referred to above were removed for being a social networking site. I have replied to your comments on your talk page. In the future please add new comments to the bottom of a section to help readability. swaq 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

Sorry about clogging up the page history, I manage a wikispace and know it makes a huge difference if you use the preview button, rather than just clicking save and seeing what happens. NB. You know the concept car markup? How do I change the text/images in it? Hce95 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the concept_automobile template? I don't think you can make changes without modifying the template source which would change the way it is displayed for all pages (not a good idea). What were you wanting to add to the article? swaq 05:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity... Hce95 (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

I understand your point about not adding promotional material to Wikipedia and my article, (VistaJet Holding), which was not meant to be promotional. I guess I used too much of the company's website text. VistaJet is a company similar to NetJets and I was trying to create an article similar to theirs. Please give me a copy of the source text so that I can rewrite it with content acceptable to Wikipedia. Also, I am the creator of the logo I uploaded, as well as the website text. If you look on the company's website under their press releases you will see I was appointed COO as of April 1st.

Thanks for your help,

2McDonnell (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need to be written with a neutral point of view. See also the five pillars of Wikipedia. Because you are affiliated with VistaJet you have a conflict of interest. It would be best if someone unaffiliated wrote the article. swaq 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, however that doesn't mean I can't (or shouldn't) initiate a neutral article. As such, can you please give me a copy of the source text so that I can rewrite it with content acceptable to Wikipedia. Thanks,

2McDonnell (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy of the article. swaq 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how do I get a copy? Thanks, 2McDonnell (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. You could try asking an admin. However, since all the information was more or less copied and pasted from the official website I don't see how this would be of much use anyway. I would highly recommend letting someone without a conflict of interest create the article. It would be much less likely to be deleted in that case, especially if it cites independent reliable sources. swaq 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice please...?

Hi there

You recently removed links to Facebook group links I had made to certain articles. can i ask, does myspace fall under the same removal rules? because i have found others adding myspace links and would like to know if i should revert these for the same reasons? Many thanks δ²_(Talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general MySpace links should not be included either. In fact, MySpace is mentioned specifically on the external links guidelines page. swaq 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so just to be clear, this is to do with the Lucy Pinder page. I maintain it at the moment and somone has added a link to her "official" page on myspace. shall i remove it? δ²_(Talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already have a link to an official site which is not MySpace I would recommend deleting the MySpace link. If it were the only official site and it was confirmed that that was an official site, then it would be a harder decision. I would also recommend removing the unofficial fan site under the external links. If you need more guidance you could try asking on WikiProject Spam. swaq 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look at the link. I don't see any proof that it is an official page. In addition to that, it requires registration because the profile is set to private. This falls under #6 of "Links normally to be avoided" on the external links page. swaq 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks swaq, do you mind having a look at the page to see if this is acceptable? Regards δ²_(Talk) 01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Looks alright to me. swaq 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Um, thanks? (I read the explanation on another talk page you posted this on but I still don't get why...) swaq 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koenigsegg external link

Hello,

I added a legitimate external link to a company and that link was removed by a user, which I found wrong. We conducted an interview with the company about it's products and employees and this article added useful and deeper information that was missing from the company profile. The company I'm referring to is called Koenigsegg and my magazine spent a day interviewing the owners of the company. Can anyone please explain how I may have violated the guidelines if I'm adding more information - legitimate information - abou the company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bihac008 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were involved with the company doing the interview you have a conflict of interest. This means the link addition could be considered advertising, especially since almost all your edits have been adding links. Also, the site you linked to required registration to view the content, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. See Wikipedia:External links for more information. swaq 16:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Squaw,

I am user Bihac008. You sent me a warning about "spamming" which has surprised me. I find it difficult to understand how my links fall under that category given I'm adding valuable content. It is not my intention to "spam" I hate spammers. I would like you to contact me and tell me what it is I'm doing that is inappropriate. I cannot defend myself if I don't know what is upsetting you.

Please respond clearly, and coherently, and then please guide me as to how I may be a "responsible" content contributor.

Anxiously awaiting your response,

Bihac008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bihac008 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines for external links. The site you added falls under "Links normally to be avoided" #6 and possible #4 and #13. Also, since you said "We conducted an interview..." I'm assuming you are affiliated with the site to which you linked. This means you have a conflict of interest, which makes the links advertising suspects. If you want to be a helpful contributor to Wikipedia then I recommend starting by reading the five pillars of Wikipedia. swaq 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now. So, if I'm the editor of a publication, regardless of whether or not I believe the material is substansial, educational, or informative, I'm not allowed to add an external link? A reader may?

Well, then publications like the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Thelocal.se which all have super amounts of external links throughout Wikepedia seem to have "external" people plugging away their articles. Have you investigated these media?

No worries. I shall add no more links to Wikipedia nor shall I ever use it as a credible and unbiased source of information given it seems users have figured out a way around these rules. How do we know if the material we read are accurate? If it is possible to add English content to topics where lacking, unbiased, researched English information then one should be able to do so.

But...these are your rules. Rules are rules.

Bihac008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bihac008 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at those other sites, but it is possible they should be removed as well depending on if they meet the external linking guidelines. If you think there is a violation you could bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:Spam. I tend to watch the automobile articles. Sites used as references or sources in Wikipedia articles should meet the guidelines for reliable sources.

By the way, you should indent replies on talk pages with colons (:) and sign comments with four tildes (~~~~). swaq 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Audi R8 TDI Le Mans

An article that you have been involved in editing, Audi R8 TDI Le Mans, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audi R8 TDI Le Mans. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xdelta and XDELTA

just so you know - Xdelta as referenced in Revision Control System is a different thing than the XDELTA debugger Tedickey (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I'm still not sure why it needs a link when the article has been deleted. swaq 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People put links to topics that they may write - as a rule, I'd only remove those redlinks after I investigated and found that the topic isn't likely to be notable. Xdelta (compression) probably is notable. So I restored the links you removed. Tedickey (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xdelta was deleted for not being notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xdelta. swaq 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see (given the commenters, unsurprising). Tedickey (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other links you removed, Wikipedia guidelines state that See also sections should not contain links to articles which do not exist. swaq 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software and A7

Hmm, yeah, A7 never applies to software. My only thinking is that the deleting admin thought it was web content, as in a website, rather than a software program. Or they didn't understand the policy at all, which unfortunately applies to a few admins. For future reference, always AfD a software program. I'm not going to undelete the other one because it would've been deleted anyway, but the admin should have followed the rules there; otherwise what's the point in having them? You were right to query it. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll change my other A7 speedy to an AfD too then. swaq 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Asimo edits

Thanks for the nice link cleanup work on the Asimo article. :) RainbowOfLight ^Talk 05:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I came across it rather randomly and decided it could use a little work. swaq 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment about Lotus Cars new advertising campaign involving "faceless aliens"

You removed a point added to Lotus Cars' article about their new advertising campaign involving "faceless aliens" in prominent venues across London. You're not was that the point constituted vandalism. Exactly why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.193.39 (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was not sourced. Faceless aliens are typically not associated with car companies and your addition did not explain how they were connected, so I assumed vandalism. swaq 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAMBA disambiguation page

Please explain the rationale for your removal of my edit adding the Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association. You failed to leave an edit summary. Thanks. REL1870 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are discouraged on disambiguation pages, as they are designed for navigation of Wikipedia, not as comprehensive lists. swaq 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vbuzzer

I added some references to Vbuzzer. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vbuzzer. --Eastmain (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airline codes-A‎

Please do not delete links to valid future articles. Almost every airline is notable. The fact that an article may have been deleted does not mean that the airline is not notable and that a proper article will not be written. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following the red link guidelines. Both articles I unlinked were deleted for not asserting notability. I'm not saying that they aren't notable and won't have an article in the future, but in general articles that have been deleted should not have links. swaq 22:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this to me ?

Hello, just wanted to ask one thing : the info I've added to the Lamborghini pages are perfectly correct, apparently there were some issues with a lambocars account that leads you to believe I'm not legit ?? I've been collecting all things about Lamborghini since childhood, browsed thousands of pages of the years and found lambocars.com to be a valuable source, I'm sure his info is verified with the factory. As for the production numbers on the GT, Valentino himself told me there were 83 cars built, the factory museum car is not numbered by the way as nr 80/80 was already sold when they built it.

I have responded to your accusations on the page, please read that reply too, I'm not referencing lambocars.com only, added several articles from other sites too. I'm feeling really bad about this personal attack on me, I wanted to contribute something useful to these pages, but get punished because of some issues with another member. Johan - WikiBull (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being "correct" does not necessarily mean something should be included in an article. See WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. As for the site itself, I'm skeptical that it is a reliable source (see also WP:V), but even if it is that doesn't mean it should be spammed as a reference. I will respond further in the sock puppet case. swaq 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point in this, but why haven't you replied to my comments on the sock puppet case ? This really feels like you're just trying to hurt people with your actions, I've been losing sleep over your accusations, don't know if this is really worth all the hassle, just wanted to become an editor, but I guess I'll just keep away from these pages. The info and facts on the Lamborgini pages contain real errors you know, just wanted to correct them. WikiBull (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock report on Kumarrao

Hello Swaq. I've just resubmitted this report, which had a formatting problem. It is now at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kumarrao. Please add your own comment about how this matter came to your attention. I thought I would try to close this, because it is the report which has been open the longest at WP:SSP. But it is hard to see what the problem is. Maybe there is more evidence that has not yet been included. Please see my comment, and explain any remaining problem that you think needs to be addressed. If you are satisfied, perhaps the report can be closed with no further ado. The two editors named in the report had not been notified, and I've just done that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mixup. It was Indianprithvi who actually submitted the report. He seems to have made a technical error. I fixed the records. There is nothing more you need to do here! EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. I guess he must have copied and pasted from my report here. swaq 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

250 GTO

I don't understand what is meant by "'brakes' is an invalid infobox field" as the edit summary re. deletion of "Dunlop" from "Dunlop disc brakes"; would be grateful for enlightenment! Thanks — Writegeist (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'brakes' field in Template:Infobox_Automobile. The edit summary was not referring to removing the word "Dunlop", but the line in the infobox. I was further reverting the additions by Bd64kcmo that added the bits on Dunlop brakes, since they were unsourced and possibly non-notable. swaq 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:J.delanoy/chess‎

Yes it was a mistake on my part. I was tired and not really paying attention, sorry about that. The world can still win! Ollie Fury _Contribs 18:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]