User talk:Dan1679/Archive007

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

ANGEL Learning reference add

Hi AbsolutDan I've added a reference to the ANGEL Learning article and wondered if it is correctly formatted and appropriate? I'm new to wikipedia contribution and hope to become more adept. Appreciate your input. Thanks krich 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Netiquette

When I first clicked on the article it had been deleted, I rv'd it to the previous version of it.--Hypo 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are just concerned about one link why did you have to delete the entire article. I just made a quick edit to what I thought was vandalism, I still don't really understand what all the hooplah is about.--Hypo 08:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure--Hypo 17:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

re. balanced scorecard

Dear AbsolutDan: I'm pleased to know that someone is actively maintaining the page on this topic. I added my reference, which has been widely quoted on the Internet since its posting in 1998, as a definitive article on the topic. I was surprised to see that it was removed, considering that another article, by a David Chaudron, remains. It was written in 2006 and points to a poorly-formatted page on his consulting web site.

If you search Google you will find that the Balanced Scorecard Institute is #1 (out of 4.5 million) in the list of sites regarding the balanced scorecard. This is a reflection of our longevity and authority in this field.

If I have not followed any of the Wiki rules, I would appreciate your letting me know.

Thanks, Parveson 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Paul Arveson Balanced Scorecard Institute

Need some guidance on 'notability'

Not sure if you're the Editor in Charge that posted a huge notice on the article I'm trying to develop for Golden Age Radio preservation. It rather offensively links the article to pornography, among other categories. Frankly I'd prefer you simply delete the article, if you feel it's pornography-related. I'm obviously confused about how an article on Wikipedia ever evolves, or are all articles expected to be finished pieces from the first posting? That certainly wasn't my impression from hundreds of other articles I've seen on Wikipedia.

If you'd care to offer some constructive guidance, instead of linking a well intentioned article to pornogrpahy, I'd be pleased for any help or guidance you might provide. If a few hundred kilobytes of reference to Golden Age Radio preservation are simply stinking up Wikipedia, just tell me in a message. It's somewhat insulting to be linked to pornography, simply because the first attempt at developing this article didn't seem to satisfy someone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnyhagen (talk • contribs) 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Please let me know how long the pornography reference will remain on the article. As I understand it, you are the single person on Wikipedia who can and will make any decisions regarding this article, and since you didn't answer my primary question or offer any constructive help in what it is you--since apparently articles on Wikipedia only need to appeal to you and no one else, or risk deletion or the placement of 'pornography' references--or you simply brand it a pornographic reference to force the submitter or submitters to request it's deletion, or risk a continuing, defaming inference as being associated with pornography.

If the pornography reference will now remain on the article for the immediate future, I see no service performed--to anyone--by defaming the important issue of Golden Age Radio preservation, by associating it with pornography. That's the precise opposite of my intent in posting the article in the first place.

This is apparently your decision and yours alone. Whether I'm forced to request the article be deleted or not, will depend in part on how long you, and apparently only you, will continue to post a pornography reference that can't be removed from the article by anyone but you.

Having now read numerous other comments regarding other articles deemed by one person and one person alone, to be inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, it's apparent that the perceived value of any article for inclusion depends less on it's value to the community of viewers reading it, than to the value one of a handful of 'super-users' places on it, irrespective of their experience or understanding of the article at issue.

This is a conundrum that can't readily be understood. I'll ask yet again for some assistance in what you, the super-user in question, needs to see in this article to persuade you to remove the defaming and insulting reference to pornorgraphy.

I'll attempt to post, enhance, or alter whatever you suggest, to have the pornography reference removed.

Thanks again for the quick reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnyhagen (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've included some of the citations of The Digital Deli Online as a Golden Age Radio Broadcasting History reference.

I wonder if you'd take a moment to review them, to determine if these are the type of citations you're recommending be included in the article.

Are they structured correctly, or should they be listed as footnotes, or in a separate section, etc.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnyhagen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming clear that this is becoming personal. I was surprised to see your concerted effort to now remove every link to any and all Digital Deli Online pages, including Listen To sections.

Perhaps you can explain your interpretation of Listen To sections as spam--or for that matter links to a purely Golden Age Radio History site, in the first place. Our AFRS pages are viewed hundreds of times a month, and the AFRS programs listened to and downloaded as well--for free.

You seem to be under the impression that the Listen To links link to either a commercial site or a commercial purpose. You clearly don't view the pages you summarily delete. This is a perfect example. Perhaps you can tell me why a Listen To Link to 6 full length examples of AFRS programming are spam. I'd be fascinated to see your justification.

Please advise what oversight, if any, exists within Wikipedia when it becomes apparent that an editor or user is routinely reversing or deleting perfectly valid, NON-COMMERCIAL contributions to the encyclopedia.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnyhagen (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Thanks Again. I think I understand a bit better. Here's my dilemma:

Bear with me as I illustrate what appears to be a concerted effort by what are truly, obviously and nakedly commercial 'radio history' sites on the internet that are apparently in control--lock stock and barrel--of any and all Wikipedia Golden Age Radio topics and articles:

OTRCAT --The largest CD and DVD sales site on the internet.

External Links on the Old Time Radio (a term I feel trivializes Golden Age Radio, by the way) article:

• 1942 radio programs

--Almost nothing whatsoever to do with Golden Age Radio or Old Time Radio, except a couple of casual references.

• Antique Radios

--A radio hardware site, with virtually no references to Golden Age Radio history or Old Time Radio History--take your pick.

• Artie Richard: "Radio Days"

--One page of common knowledge radio references and 12 commercial banner ads.

• Billy Jack Long's Radio Favorites

--Pop-ups on every page, banner ads on every page.

• Dramapod Old-Time Radio

--No history whatsoever, just banner ads and referrals.

• Recreation Radio

--Self-promotion, no history.

• Salomonson's Audio Classics

--A purely CD and DVD sales site.

• Vintage Radio Shows

--A purely commercial podcasting site.

• Zenonas Langaitis' Collection of Old Radio Sets

--A radio hardware sales and referral site.

On the Campbell Playhouse article you removed my FREE listen to, linked to a page with no commercial purpose whatsoever, including history about all Campbells shows, while keeping the

• The Campbell Playhouse radio archive (19 episodes)

link full of banner ads.

There are at least 20 other similar examples, but I won't bore you since you've already removed my Listen To links from all of those pages.

Now do a Google Image search on 'digitaldeliftp.com', then a similiar Google Image search on any other Old Time Radio History or OTR History site on the internet. See the results Google pulls up from The Digital Deli Online, versus the total sum output of all of the other Golden Age Radio broadcasting history sites--combined!

Now, please. Tell me honestly what's going on here. Is it not obvious to anyone, that the vast majority of 'OTR' puported 'history' sites are nothing but nakedly commercial, self-promoting enterprises? There's not one--repeat not one--commercial banner, banner sharing, pop-up ad, or even Google ad on even one of the 1200 Digital Deli Online pages. Help me out here? I mean the prejudice and 'gaming' going on throughout all of these supposedly Golden Age Radio or Golden Age Radio History articles is just blatantly self-serving to anyone bothering to look at any of those sites.

Not to mention the fact that the 'Old Time Radio' article is, in it's entirety, almost utterly and thoroughly factually inaccurate, biased, or 'fluff'. The author cites one and only one authoritative source, and with all due respect to John Dunning, the serious Golden Age Radio history community realizes that John Dunning's very popular book was filled with inaccuracies, 'fluff' and anecdotal Golden Age Radio heresay. Yes it's a huge compendium, but a compendium of fluff, for the most part. While we all owe Mr. Dunning a debt of gratitude for elevating the popularity of and interest in The Golden Age of Radio, the Old Time Radio article in it's current form cites almost no truly authoritative references. Do the 'super-users' or self-styled hitmen of Wikipedia get some kind of recognition for the most reversed material each week? Is it just something as simple as that? Believe me, I'd understand, if that's the case, but I simply need to understand the rules of engagement here--political or otherwise.

Let's be perfectly frank. You need but pull up my history to see all the external links, Listen To's and See Also's I've added, only to be removed within hours, by the same self-serving, self-promoting individuals posting their own links to commercial sites. If I begin to edit The Old Time Radio article for more accuracy, with citations and references, the same old crowd will simply come along and undue them every few days. Heck, I can't even seem to contribute some of the most respected history links on the internet without someone from 'the inner circle' coming by and simply deleting them as spam.

I'm at a loss. The proof is right here on this page, and yet every single time I attempt to contribute helpful, authoritative links, FREE examples of fine, on-topic Golden Age Radio Listen To links, or even links to sites like Professor Steven Schoenherr's, or Jeff Miller's, or Dr. Thomas White's excellent and thoroughly referenced Golden Age Radio History sites, one or more of the nakedly self-promoting site owners--or their agents--deletes them as spam or spam links.

Ever since I brought The Digital Deli Online 5 years ago, it's been insinuated that The Digital Deli Online is run by a cast of thosands. That's a complete and utter falsehood. It's run by two people--period. One webmaster, and one researcher. That's it. Every graphic, every article, every feature, every line of code is by one person and one person only. Now yes, many might say the look and feel of the site ranges from between childishly simple (the large type, etc.) to highly sophisticated and nostalgic for it's theme (which was it's intent from the very outset). But for the most part, the '_target audience' of Golden Age Radio History are older folks that simply can't read tiny type. Some 'get' the theme, colors and type size, some don't. That's the nature of the internet. But The Digital Deli Online has remained true to the purpose and the theme of all 1200 pages; the promotion, celebration, and further education regarding The Golden Age of Radio and the culture of the era. Period. No Ads, no promotions, no pop-ups, no Google or Yahoo Ads. Just Golden Age Radio History--period.

I need to get some serious guidance here. This is simply a travesty. And it appears that unless one is an 'insider' you're helpless to stop it.

Any suggestions?

Thanks again for the continuing prompt replies, and I very much appreciate the removal of the pornographic actor reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnyhagen (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

AbsolutDan--I believe Dnyhagen may be misleading you as to the true purpose of the Digital Deli site and posing himself as a victim (rather than owning up to his own campaign to remove almost all non-digitaldeli website related links from old time radio section in Wikipedia.) To be "perfectly frank", Digital Deli claims to be 'pure golden age history', but the second link on the left side of digitaldeliftp.com will lead visitors to purchase "GOLDEN AGE FTP CD/DVD" (http://www.digitaldeliftp.com/FTPSite/ftpsite.html). It is on this linked page that he compares himself to the list of other commercials sites; the same site he has made a policy of removing from Wikipedia as 'spammers'. Admittidly his self published article citations are very good as it appears he has over 80+ edits to his self promoting website article to try to narrowly fit into Wikipedia's guidelines, meantime Dnyhagen has been "fighting spam" by deleting all his radio download (FTP site) competitor's websites from Wikipedia. He appears to be opposed to linking to any website with google advertisements, but many of the links he deleted were direct links to the sound files (mp3) themselves. Digital Deli has been and continues to be a commercial website relying on FTP membership purchases to fund website (much as a google ad would pay for bandwidth fees on the sites he has removed). In case of his argument, if you google search for nearly any of the sites he's removed you'll find Digital Deli in the same category--all focus on radio history. Wikipedia is indeed intended to be a true Encyclopedia of sorts; however reading about the radio show does not do it justice as to hearing the radio show itself; hyperlinking to sound files is one of the great revolutions in an internet encylopedia-these are the same links of Dnyhagen has removed so they won't compete with his own website advertisement article. Dnyhagen has engaged in activities to monopolize Wikipedia old time section; removing all commecials competitors websites mentions while promoting his own in terms of old time radio. Indeed there have been many 'travisities' (as Dnyhagen puts it) commited in the old time radio section of wikipedia, however Dnyhagen is responsible for many of them and yet he still continues to argue the validity of his own advertisement article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Deli_Online). Wikiotr 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reposting of Notability Notice by 64.126.42.87

You've been very helpful in helping me navigate Wikipedia issues and guidelines. I wonder if you can help me unravel the current situation. I get the distinct impression that User talk:64.126.42.87 and User:Pepso are one in the same person. Both appear to be OTRCat.com. I recognize that any user can edit an article mercilessly, but I can't help but wonder at OTRCat.com, 64.126.42.87, or Pepso's motives now. I noticed that the OTRCAT article was edited for possible removal within the past 24 hours. Could that be the source of this most recent 'Notability' template that 64.126.42.87 posted to The Digital Deli Online? I'm not sure my conclusions are accurate, but there certainly seems to be a connection. Am I on the right trail here? Being a newbie still, I hate to keep seeking help from you, but you seem to be both firm, but accessible in your criticisms and comments. If I'm all wet here, I'd just as soon hear it from you, since I have quickly grown to respect what you're up against in most of these situations. Thanks Dnyhagen 19:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: It would appear that User talk:64.126.42.87, User:Pepso, User talk:64.126.81.5, and OTRCAT are one in the same, if you'll look at their respective history and contribs pages. I may be wrong, but it certainly seems to be the case. Dnyhagen 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Further update: It would appear that you can add User:Otrbuff to the above list. Is there a convenient cross-checking mechanism to determine multiple identities for the same individual? Dnyhagen 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it unusual Dnyhagen is trying to track IPs to trace editors on Wikipedia (and incidently is wrong). This is very much representational of Dnyhagen's continuing attempt to remove all competitors websites on wikipedia in an effort to monopolize the old time radio section of Wikipedia to promote his own commercial website, Digital Deli.Wikiotr 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Need to understand the limits of unsupported slander on a talk page. RE: Your comments to Wikiotr on Talk:Digital Deli Online. Am I to understand that a user can make the most libelous, slanderous, heresay, unsupported comments on a 'Talk' page without falling under the same constraints as in other sections of Wikipedia? Need some guidance on how to proceed with the Talk page in it's current form. I rather expected other editors to either strike out the soapbox, or sanction the user. Since neither has been forthcoming, and, as I understand it, once placed on a page, only another editor can remove something, what are the available options? Any advice, positive or negative would be appreciated at this point. Dnyhagen 09:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Need guidance on how to proceed

Embarking on only my second week on Wikipedia, I need some guidance on how long Wikipedia will continue to condone the ongoing series of slanderous, public, pornographic, and unsubstantiated personal attacks against me and The Digital Deli Online. I would hope this doesn't occur often on Wikipedia, but if the articles or discussions I contribute to from here on out are going to continue to be accompanied by page after page of this daily drek, when exactly does it ever stop? I would hope someone's noted my restraint at rising to the bait, but it's reflecting worse on Wikipedia than it is on me. Any guidance? Dnyhagen 05:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

Dan, I saw your note concerning commercial external links in the article 'Netiquette'. I feel my link did add value to the page as the site link led to a free whitepaper on the subject. Most of the current sites listed have commercial advertising as part of their site in the form of adwords - does this not make them a commercial site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tetsou (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't touch this one, but you should

Check the history in Davy Rothbart, re: repeated reinsertion of link spam, opening unwarned audio player window from libsyn.com. This is an ongoing gambit, and if you do a libsyn.com search of Wikipedia you'll see what I mean. There are approximately 120 such links on Wikipedia at present, all from libsyn.com, and many immediately opening a media player window without warning. I won't belabor the imprudence of opening a media player without warning the user first, as well as the imprudence not first advising the user of the source. I think both go without saying. This is libsyn.com. One of the several external links I removed from Wikipedia during that initial spate of removals. If this isn't commercial, I don't know what is. I'm not gonna make this call. You'll have to do it. If you're not familiar with the current round of potential media player threats, there are three existing Windows Media Player exploits currently in circulation, that can either install 'rootkits' on an unwitting user's computer simply by playing an exploited media file, or even worse, hijack the user's computer. I've warned this individual about posting links that immediately open a media player, but the primary issue at hand is the commercial source that delivers all 120+ of them currently within Wikipedia. Don't be dissuaded by the contributor's argument that it simply opens a media player window. Note that whenever a media file is delivered in this manner, the serving site gets a page hit, even if the user didn't navigate to the serving site. These chiselers know this, and exploit it all over the internet. Just an FYI. Do with it what you will. I guess Guy conveniently overlooked these, too. I'll try to balance these equally between you and Wmahan or any other similar editors you might suggest to me, lest I continue to be branded not impartial. Dnyhagen 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one. Jean Shepherd's ficklives External link. It's a great tribute site, but it's both commercial and self-promoting. I'd removed it, but someone anonymous keeps replacing it. Dnyhagen 03:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Link removed from interim manager article

Dear Dan,

I would like you to review your decision to remove a link from the interim manager article.

The link is "Setting up as an Interim Manager".

Once the article was created it was then reviewed by a Wikipeida editor who made a couple of layout and text changes, inserted a link box at the top of the article and even cut down the description of the link in question. The link was not removed. If a Wikipedia editor did not see the link as in appropriate then why do you?

If you read the article you will see that it is not promoting Aster Interim. The article provides valuable information to anyone who is considering becoming an interim manager. There is no reference to Aster Interim services or requests to contact the company within the article.

I have written this article from my own experiences to help people entering the industry and I have had many responses from visitors on the value of the article. So in effect you are denying readers a very valuable resource.

--Paul Aster 09:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok Dan, I will leave the link on the talk page and keep an eye on it. Thanks.

--Paul Aster 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Matrix Cookbook

Hi Dan

I can see that you have deleted the recently added external links to "The Matrix Cookbook". Allow me to explain what the cookbook is in a few lines:

The Matrix Cookbook is scientific, free and non-commercial service. It started as a internal collection of matrix identities at our university department, but soon became popular among other scientists. Therefore we decided to share the knowledge with everyone. No-one is profiting from it commerically, but thousands of students, researchers and teachers benefit by getting quick and free access to the knowledge. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?

I hope you will reconcider - and let the links to the cookbook stay.

All the best, Kaare -- Kaare Brandt Petersen Technical University of Denmark http://2302.dk/uni —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.226.31.64 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Time Radio irrevocably bankrupt. Time to move on.

I thank you for your civility and constructive support, as I traversed the underbelly of Wikipedia this past two weeks. There's clearly something intellectually amiss among the group of editors and 'contributors' over at Old Time Radio, and it's simply not worth the continued agro. You'd do well to keep policing not so much the external links arising out of Old Time Radio and its tentacles, but if you'll simply do a libsyn.com search in Wikipedia you'll find enough to keep you and several other editors busy for weeks.

Best regards to you, AbsolutDan. You took the brunt of much of my initial frustrations with one of the most intellectually bankrupt endeavors on Wikipedia, and steadfastly took the high road with me--far longer than I'd have, if the situations had been reversed.

You're one of the good guys. Keep it up, for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity. Cheers. Dnyhagen 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about commercial links

Hello AbsolutDan,

I'm new to wikipedia, so I say the following with all due respect. Please help me understand the criteria by which the following links are allowed, yet my attempt to add a link to another commercial entity (www.easyreach.com) to Mobile Commerce (and similar addition for Mobile Search) was rejected (by you)?

[apparently acceptable commercial links (on Mobile Commerce)

• KushCash Mobile Payment System, Secure Wireless Transfers Corp. (U.S.A)
• Vipera Mobile Commerce Platform]

Also, can you explain the process by which such a decision is made, seemingly unilaterally, by one user (you) over another (me)? I'm not yet aware of the protocols involved or the administrative roles apparently played by some users (you). I admit I haven't read all the policies, but thought I was following an example (adding to an existing set of commercial links). Can you point me to a reference that might explain how this works (wherein you derive authority to reject my input)? Again, this is not an attempt to be snide, but rather an attempt to understand. I'm glad to read the relevant documentation if you could be so kind as to provide a pointer.

Thank you. Greyhound4334 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

AbsolutDan,

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I appreciate the explanation, the intro, and the welcome.

Cheers, greyhound Greyhound4334 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please verify the info before labeling it as "commercial links"

Please verify the info posted by others before labeling it as "commercial links" .

Starting from 2006 Sep 7, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud article contains a sentence which reads: The utility of this method could be greatly increased if one tag cloud lead to another, essentially forming a conjunction of tags that could be used to more precisely identify content.

Before 2006 Sep 22, it was: The utility of this method could be greatly increased if one tag cloud lead to another, essentially forming a conjunction of tags that could be used to more precisely identify content, even so, no known implementation of this yet exists.

Information about wortwolke.de , claiming it is the first to implement this method, was added at 2006 Sep 22, without any reference, citation, proof or check of its correctness.

Information about blogoforum.com, naming it as a system to implement this method, was added at 2006 Oct 01, together with reference to the source, checked for correctness.

You have labeled the information entered about blogoforum.com as "commercial link" and removed it. Please tell what research have you made before labeling it as "commercial link". Please have respect to information added by others, stop vandalism acts, and do maintain Wikipedia articles with respect to other's maintainers opinions.

Denis Krukovsky - author, Blogoforum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.151.57.7 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

re Response Surface Methodology

Sorry, I should have explained the edit but wasn't sure where to.

(1) It doesn't seem a valid criticism that the coefficients are estimated & not 'known'. If the variance of the predicted response is too high to allow the optimum to be accurately ascertained then this is apparent & can be fixed by adding more points to the design (or perhaps by reconsidering the independent variables to investigate). This is what RSM is all about---fitting an empirical model to within a certain precision.

(2) The 'trade-off between variability & bias' seems vague. If it means choosing between unbiased estimation procedures & those that minimize the overall mean squared error & those that maximize the likelihood, then (a) it doesn't apply to the Normal error model most commonly used in RSM, & (b) it's a general problem of estimation & not unique to RSM

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdbrogan (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Dan

That was not Vandalism. That was the truth. I was updating the wiki with recent events. So go fuck yourself dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.40.201.174 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam?

Hi, Dan. I saw your comment in User talk:Wccaccamise and thought you might be interested in checking out the contributions of User:William charles caccamise sr, md; they appear to be the same person. Cheers! -AED 20:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dan. Thanks for your note and the link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Keep up the good work! -AED 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

AIMC Listing

I am new to Wikipedia, and hope I am communicating this to you properly through the correct venue, in the correct manner.

Just to continue our previous conversation, I was unaware of the limitations to listing a site in Wikipedia. I listed our site on pages that are relevant to our members, and on pages practioners who would be interested in our networking opportunities would visit.

As I mentioned, the AIMC is an association of internal consulting groups, identical in purpose and activity to the AMCF (Association of Management Consulting Firms)which is listed on the page. However, we do not have the same profit and sales motive. As opposed to the AMCF, we are not advertising for profit member consulting firms.

We provide person-to-person networking services. Our members are corporate and not-for-profit employees who provide organizational development, process improvement, and training and development consulting services within a corporation, and who are faced the day-to-day challenge of staying up-to-date with best practices in the feild to maintain thier careers. We provide a low cost venue for networking with others in their field help develop best services possible (as opposed to hiring a for profit management consulting firm to buy the skills). We also provide certification in internal management consulting and are developing our site to disseminate information important to internal management consulting practitioners. We are staffed solely by volunteers interested in facilitating this networking.

Furthermore, we provide additional resources to those responding to the internal management consulting section on the management consulting page.

I would appreciate being listed on the page: The Association of Internal Management Consultants, www.aimc.org.

Again, I apologize for what appreared to be spam. Spam includes a questionable intention, and I did not intend to create any mischief or advertise something by taking advantage of the pages' links.

Thank you for your consideration.

Neal Braver —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbraver100 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Link bait

I sent you an email -- Jaimie. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsirovic (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

spanish group films deletion

That is crap. You have to understand that to them, it's not about money. Its about getting recognized for what they do. You clearly do not understand what it is like to do work and not have them be appreciated. You just shoot down people's hopes and dreams. You just get people upset. Not all people are the same. Understand that your comments have a lasting impression on some people, and that you probably do this only because you have no talent to do anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justfor52 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

i am calm, you moron. this is absurd, some of the things that get deleted. this should be about promoting the public's talent so that they can get recognized and maybe, just maybe, gain confidence for what they enjoy doing. But it's people like you that ruin that dream. Please explain to me what is so wrong about promoting something that exists that is made only for other's enjoyment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justfor52 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable Software - why?

Hi Dan, I just started an article about an open source software CMS BIGACE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIGACE. It seems to me as if you categorized it as "Non-notable software".

I do not see a reason for that. If you have a look on the posted links, you might see, that it is used and well documented. The Author works on it for couple of years now, and I do not think you it should be deleted only because it is not that large as other Open-Source CMS are.

Please let me know why you do not like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.173.150.163 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Clusty

Regarding your removal of Clusty dynamic TagCloud external link from Tag cloud page. I think if you investigate it you will see that it is a very important milestone. Tag clouds in the past were static, Clusty.com offers a dynamic version. Just look into it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.121.48.34 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

hey dan

Hey Dan. I wanted to ask you to let me recover the links that I’ve posted before. I don’t see any reasons for you to block it. If you read some of the material that is provided on www.Pmemory.com you will understand that all of the information is very valuable. I mean it cannot be compared even close to other links or articles about memory. I would love to answer to all of your questions and concerns. I must admit that the website is commercial but the only thing you should pay is the Memory Course. The rest of the information is 100% free. I haven’t tried to sell anything; my links were pointed to the specific and appropriate information.

Thanks you. You can also contact me at alex_dubas@inbox.ru —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex dubas (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

EL's in Cascading Style Sheets

FYI, I've done a major cleanup. -- Regards, Moondyne 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

hi there

You recently asked me to stop adding links to 'startup company' and 'business plan' entries. I think that you are being unnecessarily harsh. Here's why: while it's true that I am in business, my web site is designed to be a mine of information and links in the service of entrepreneurs - and entirely free to the user. I am a veteran entrepreneur with a lot to offer the budding entrpreneur. If you take a look at the web site, it is about 95% is pure information and guidance. That is the way it is designed as a service. It is only in cases where someone is actively seeking assistance that they would contact me. I have made many additions to wikis in my field, absolutely in the spirit of the beast. I have many authorities in the field offering compliments on the WorkSavvy website and from feedback I know that it provides a genuine service Indeed if you take the view about it that you do, I think that there are many others that should be asked to stand down also. But this would probably be in detriment to those people who are actually seeking information on this very important business subject. Therefore I would ask you to (a) take another look at the content of www.worksavvy.ws and (b) reconsider your request. I'd be delighted to discuss this further with you, should you wish. My email address is [e-mail address removed -AbsolutDan] with best wishes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wgpkeyser (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

To AbsolutDan for his tireless battle against the scourge of linkspam and excessive external links. -- Moondyne 02:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan, Here's a little something (it's not much I know) for all your hard and thankless work. I see that you're getting hammered by the whingers who don't or won't understand policy so I wanted to make sure that you know you're not alone in the battle. Keep up the good work. Regards -- Moondyne 02:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

how is that inapropriate

Dan, how is the link to noslang.com on internet slang inappropriate?

The link I added is the #3 link in Google for that term.

It's the same style site as acronym finder and urban dictionary, FOLDOC, and the AOL sitewhich are also listed. In fact, it contains a lot more terms and information than those sites. It's even got a book published about Internet slang.

Clearly this site is an authority on internet slang, and if any of those sites deserve to be there, so does this one.

How can you justify that this site isn't a relevant link?

It was listed there (not by me) many months ago but was removed (presumably by you).

I just put it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.38.82.66 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

re- zarra,valencia

hi dan. First off,thanks for reading what I tried to add,the truth is I don't quite fully understand how the system works therfore I seem to be making a mess of it. I live in the village and only wanted to add something about it to let other people know that there is more to zarra than just,with full respects,a dead spanish footballer. I don't know how to "wikify" the article. Could you please advise. thanks very much keith (zarra) buchanan kedesco@msn.com --Zarra 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan

Dan...

In your opinion, what makes a site reliable?

I get no benefit what so ever by adding that URL to the page. There's no ads on that page I added, so i have no motivation to do it.

The site published a freaking non-fiction book related to the topic. How more "reliable" can you get?

Ooh.. ban me. Scary. I've edited tons of other articles (with different ips) to add non-links. You ban me, you lose that too.

If you don't want that site, fine. However I will assure you that I or somebody else will remove ALL external links from that article every day. I will have people checking it morning noon and night and removing all links to external sites.

What's fair is fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.38.82.66 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

listing

What is the problem with listing open source guides for P2PTV ? The person from NZ lists only commercial software - scvi.net lists Open Source software. The NZ site also has google advertising.

What is the problem with listing the website as a resource for Nullsoft Video ? scvi.net is the un-official information resource as acknowledged by AOL / Time warner inc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sankt (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of link to areas covered for Recovery from Cults

Dear AbsolutDan, How do you think the others learned of the contributors in the book. The hot links do come straight back to the wikipedia. Also, the current article is up for deletion so how are folks going to know about the book, and/or learn about the contributors? People trying to Recover from the NRM/Cult/Sect experience have an awful time finding resources, this book is by far the most valuable and the page is solely dedicated to this book/its contents. Blocking information is not the way to go. Regards TalkAbout 19:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

AbsolutDan,

I removed some links and cleaned it up. Can I now remove your tag?:) As to the BOOK...I think thank you for resolving that one. PEACETalkAbout 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

AbsolutDan,

I reduced the ones I entered the others belief it or not are all links to the Sect/Cult/NRM and Sub Sects, etc just so not to get all mixed up. It is a like a new language thing. The others are just valid. I will go and reduce some more if I can. I checked and other articles have just as many but not organised. Due to all the Hindi/groups it was necessary. ThanksTalkAbout 23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)