Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —{{User|72.75.70.147}} 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —{{User|72.75.70.147}} 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
== Bernard J. Taylor ==
Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. [[Siebahn]]
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I did not know that you were working on this for so long. Well, I left a comment to support the nomination. It was a bumpy ride, wasn't it? SEO has at least some coverage by the big media. Affiliate marketing if unfortunately not as lucky. References outside the industry are scarce. It would be great, if you could help me a little with the article to make it up to "good article" after the SEO article was accepted as featured. I can be also proud a bit, because some content came from me. I was more active at the talk page though. Well, it's a start. :) Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment. Jonathan, I also emailed Danny Sullivan, Aaron Wall, Rand Fishkin, Jaimie Sirovich, Michael Gray, Kris Jones, Liana (Li) Evans, Ahmed Bilal, Rhea Drysdale, Loren Baker, Raj Dash, Gemme van Hasselt, Jessica Bowman, Cameron Olthuis, Tetsuto Yabuki aka Halfdeck, Matt McGee and Andy Beard. If only a few more respond, great. This will reinforce the authority and quality of the article. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go easy. If you look at WP:CANVASS we need to be careful not to overdo it, or pick people based on specific views we know them to hold. Also, users who aren't experienced Wikipedians won't carry much weight, if any. We are doing nicely already and are on track to get featured article. JehochmanTalk20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going broad to get people with different SEO/SEM background to comment. Some people I even disagree with on almost every subject :). Some are social media guys, affiliate marketers, SEMs, journalists, white hat, gray hat and dark gray hat (:)) SEO. Most are not professional SEO who could be seen as biased, but each of them knows the subject enough to provide valuable comments and feedback. I asked them to leave their comments at the review page about the quality of the references used in the article. On the article itself too, if they want to, but that is up to each of the people themselves. They should only add a comment themselves if they have a Wikipedia account already. I told them to send the comments to me, if they don't. Some do have one for sure, but not checking in too often so a message on their talk page will do no good. I did not ask anybody to vote on anything. I can provide you with the copy of the email I sent, if you would like to. The people who care at least about who is cited about what in any publication will hopefully comment on that and the rest I don't care. I actually hope that at the end of this maybe some other and may be even better references surface. I could have asked my mom about her oppinion, but she does not even know what SEO is :). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. With SES China, SES Italy and the upcoming SMX are most of the people I wrote to busy anyway. I hoped for 2-3 additional opinions, which would not hurt. What is the next step after that btw.? I never spent time on finding that out. The quality of the articles in affiliate marketing need all way too much work to even start thinking about it :(. Again, good job Jonathan, I know how much work it is. It's a hell of a lot more work than a simple blog post. I can tell you that hehe. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Pick another article? As I said in the past, the affiliate marketing article is dear to my heart :) .. also the internet marketing article is in desperate need, the compensation methods are also a mess. I created a template for internet marketing in an attempt to get some structure into the whole subject. Well, I could go on and on and on :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer a rather non-internet marketing article, how about ASCII art this is the article that is for me the second most important article after affiliate marketing. It became a featured article candidate in 2004 once, but was rejected. It decayed over time and was only a shadow of itself when I looked at it last year. I used to be a very famous ASCII artist back in the days and the poor availability of information and original resources made me put up a whole site about the subject [1]. Another famous artist called RaD Man is also an active conservationist and evangelist of text art. He is also a Wikipedian. I spent a lot of time on the article and try to get it back to the status of good article. If you wonder about the references to my site, let me tell you this. A lot of resources is not available online. I had to digg through old Cd's and stuff I archived on floppy disks, then quick 80 tapes and then Cd's. That stuff was mostly distributed through BBS' and sceners today are not publishing a lot on the Web. Most of the things happen to this day on the Internet relay chat (IRC). It's a shame and even I have problems finding some of the original stuff somewhere. Stuff I know that it is there, because I have seen it myself 10 and more years ago, when I did not think about that ASCII and ANSI art would be a dying art and become even a problem to display properly on modern computers. Think about it. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry for creating a mess! Could you note such things in your edit summary, to help people like me. I'm sometimes in need of a clue. Jehochman☎ / ✔18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm confused -- what was the potentially defamatory thing I'm supposed to have added to the Britt Ekland article? It happens to be absolutely true that she hosted an ELECTRIC BLUE video. I've still got it on tape somewhere, if it matters. Dolmance16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that may be perfectly true, but with biographies we have to be especially careful to cite reliable sources. Watching the video yourself and then posting is original research. Some prudish people might think less of somebody for getting involved with such a video. I don't, but we have to think about the big picture. JehochmanTalk08:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MUGEN Network of Excellence
Dear Jehochman. I would like to provide more information regarding MUGEN NoE:
MUGEN Network of Excellence
The MUGEN network of Excellence aims to structure and shape a world-class framework of European scientific and technological excellence in the field of “murine models for immunological disease”, to advance understanding of the genetic basis of disease and to enhance innovation and translatability of research efforts. MUGEN’s specific mission is to bring together different expertise from academic and industrial laboratories in order to study human immunological disease by integrating the participant institutions’ strengths in immunological knowledge with new approaches in functional genomics. By removing barriers to progress and promoting the synergistic interaction of scientists from various disciplines integrated, MUGEN expects to bring Europe a competitive advantage in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools.
Through its Joint Programme of Activities, MUGEN aims to:
1. Systematically study animal models for immune diseases and processes through the application of functional genomic platforms (transgenesis, targeted and random mutagenesis, expression profiling and bioinformatics).
2. Integrate the outstanding research experience and capacities of each network participant to allow the efficient application of post-genomic approaches to generate new knowledge in immunological diseases and processes. Such knowledge is expected to lead to novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools.
3. Ensure spreading of excellence, optimal use and dissemination of the knowledge generated through the network beyond the boundaries of MUGEN, by integrating competencies to train researchers, to encourage knowledge transfer, to address innovation related aspects of research and to raise the public awareness of scientific research issues.
To achieve this goal, MUGEN is bringing together expertise from 14 leading research institutes, 5 major universities and 5 biotechnology companies from seven E.U. member states as well as Switzerland and the US. MUGEN will be co-funded by the EU with 11 M€ over a five year period (2005-2009). MUGEN participants will share information and technology platforms and will develop a coordinated agenda of scientific events in order to communicate their scientific achievements to a wider scientific audience as well as to the general public
Please study the description carefully and ask for evaluation from a wikipedia user with strong academic background especially in biology. Thank you in advance.Afantitis
This is just a small list from scientific websites. Afantitis
Common Cause
Could we finally ban IP address 208.201.146.137 from editing? They have made four separate edits to Common Cause since their last warning not to, which was their second warning on this issue. Do Administrators actually do this sort of thing, or do they just bask in the glory of being administrators? XINOPH | TALK11:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of basking. Seriously, some of these edits are pretty gnomish. There's a difference between spinning an article and just maintaining some non-controversial facts. Also, consider that they may have 50 people working in that office going through a single router that has one IP address. They may just be clueless. We might try to contact them and offer to help by explaining that they should use the article talk page to request changes instead of creating the appearance (and possible the fact) of conflict of interest. JehochmanTalk04:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability - blogs
The bias against blogs is very great, even when published by an expert. I have come across it myself. Specifically when the blog is written by a professional historian or other expert in the subject many do not accept it as a source quoting Wikipedia:Verifiability - blogs. I wonder if it might be a good idea to emphasize that quoting a blog if its written by a professional researcher etc is acceptable. OF course if you read the article carefully it clearly implies that such blogs are ok, however I have met many who would deny that.
Helliumballoon, I presume. I recently made a few little edits to WP:V to hopefully clarify that. The media is unimportant. What matters is the level of editorial control, review, fact checking and responsibility. Blogs are often, but not always, deficient. We need to help educate people that there are legitimate blogs in the world.
By the way, I think you are fighting a losing battle, and probably wrong too, with that legal article being discussed over at WP:COIN. You can improve your Wiki-cred by backing down and following the good advice you are being given over there. Try to find a common understanding with your opponents by explaining your situation and asking them what you should do. Just my 2 cents... JehochmanTalk04:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have let the other editors do as they seem fit. I only wish to emphasize the importance of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. A minority of blogs are written by experts in their field. However in my discussions it seemed that even the ones in this category were written off as 'just blogs' and unworthy. (This issue was tangential to what was going on in the aforementioned article.) Heliumballoon06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been notified of a current controversy regarding onefortyone and his allegations against myself. I am not sure where to start with all this. His main allegation from everything he has posted seems to be that I am a sock of Ted Wilkes thus of DW. Not sure how to answer that except that if you or anyone else dealing with this situation brought to you wish to know any information about me or from me feel free to ask. I'll start by endorsing a checkuser of my IP address per other users - particulary those above. If you wish to address me in email let me know and we can work that out. CharlesMatthews, Flonight and other administrators have worked with me in the past and can answer some questions. Please check the article in question Elvis Presley for the reasoning behind what myself-Rikstar-and Steve along with others have been doing and where we see this going. With that - again I am fully open to any questions you may have either through email or here or elsewhere. --Northmeister05:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't put too much faith in the allegations against you, and I don't think anyone else does either. I suggest you avoid confrontation with Onefortyone. Let the community handle any problems. You should look at WP:DR and use those avenues first if you get into editing conflicts with other users. You may also want to pledge to yourself that you will never do more than one revert. I've done this, and it helps me avoid stress. Wikipedia is a very big place. There are so many things to work on, there's no point in getting bogged down with content disputes. JehochmanTalk05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added sourced content to the rape article. I am trying to balance this article so that the feminist falsehoods, fraud and misrepresentation about rape as shown in so many sources from WITHIN feminism are corrected. Please spare me reactive reverts. Anacapa02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to claim point of view when you are yourself censoring content like the following [2]. This rape article is full of well-documented falsehoods and misrepresentations from a group of political ideologues trying to pander to their pov about the topic. I have every right to be bold as long as I bring in sourced content.Anacapa02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiley Protocol
I'd like you to remove the COI and Neutrality templates as we seem to have settled into an agreement to only voice our thoughts on the discussion page and leave the edits to others. I don't either article (T.S. Wiley or The Wiley Protocol) are complete, but they're OK for the time being. Neil Raden 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to look at these articles in detail this week, but you could make this suggestion on the talk page, and allow one of the uninvolved editors to make that change. I wouldn't object if somebody else agrees to do it. JehochmanTalk04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
You are pandering to point of view by censoring, slandering and otherwise misrepresenting me to protect false, fruadulent and misrepresentative feminist ideologies/political agendas. I use sourced content, I discuss many of my edits in advance and the content I add/edit is intended to allow balanced factual representation of issues that gender-feminists have been accused (by other feminists) of routinely falsifying, misrepresenting and/or censoring. If you have particular concerns, I will be glad to discuss them with you, but you have no right warn me when I am following legitimate NPOV policies, making bold but not scurrilous edits and challenging widely known reverse-sexist feminist fearmongering on issues like rape.
I am going to bring in an administrator now to look my edits over to make sure they comply with wiki policy. In the meantime, I will refrain from edits to the rape page. However, I expect these false accusations and the usual totalitarian tactics that are so common on feminism-related articles to stop now. As anyone can see from a glance at the latest attempt I made to correct reverse sexist censorship about female forms of rape on the rape discussion page, I am making a good faith attempt to be balanced. Can you say the same about yourself vis a vis misandric feminist political or ideological agendas?
As I said before, you have no right to claim point of view when you are yourself censoring sourced content which refers the following [3]. This rape article is full of well-documented falsehoods and misrepresentations from a group of political ideologues trying to pander to their pov about the topic. I have every right to be bold as long as I bring in sourced content. Just because you don't LIKE this content doesn't mean it is bad content.Anacapa 02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Anacapa18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a hotel on a *miserably atrocious* slow dialup connection ... can hardly get articles to load to look at them, and it takes me a couple of hours just to review my watchlist. I saw on Raul654's talk page that he will run through FAC sometime this weekend, and he's been traveling recently. You might want to leave a brief note on his talk page summarizing the situation (very brief), as he's got so much to get through. Sometimes he restarts long FACs, sometimes he just lets them run longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Durova, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)"
-Quote-You/Jehochman
I was trying to rebuttle to a comment that was made about my profile. I was accused of being a sock puppet of some French guy (Le Grand Citrouilles or something). Why were you thalking about the "sandbox?" This makes absolutely no sense.
As a suggestion, perhaps a short written note would hvae been more clear than a level 1 vandalism template, especially since he's new. Seems to be cleared up though. LeeboT/C20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally deleted half of the page because it was an older version that I edited (I got a link), it was an accident. DaGrandPuba02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody posted a pic on Matt Cutt's page with me in it, which I think is pretty cool. My question is, is it ok to edit the page and link my name in the pic description to my blog, chris-hooley.com? I found this page while doing a vanity search for my name on Google on page 5, and I don't want people to think I am trying to spam. I just think it would be cool if my name linked to my personal blog on that pic.
What do you think?
btw I am not the biggest wikipedian. I just realized I sent you this message because you had some input on the Matt Cutts page. If this isn't proper etiquette let me know. I hate when people think I am being a jerk lol
also I showed this to a friend of mine and he changed the name in the pic as a joke. I asked him to change it back
Hey, Chris. I saw that edit and revert. We probably can't link to your blog from the caption, but you should enjoy having your name on that article. Do you happen to have any good pictures of SEOs? Post them on your blog with a statement that you license them GDFL. I (or anyone else) can then copy those photos to Wikipedia, and you should get a link credit from the photo page so people can confirm the license. That's standard practice. JehochmanTalk21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COI text noticeboard
Hi, I think your idea of a separate space to dicuss the text in COI cases is useful because it would make a clear distinction between the disputed text and the editor's COI. Rather than broadly censuring editors for having any kind of COI (as happens on the current noticeboard), COI disputes should really focus on the the text's merits (notability, npov, original research). In my case a COI alert was used as a way to push POV on an article. Now anytime I post editors invoke my COI, and I have to inform them that COI does not trump content policies.
An external "disputed text with COI" noticeboard would also fix a problem I had where I took the disputed text to RFC [5] and some editors used my COI to try to influence the results (which is against policy). Focussing on the disputed text alone would also stop some editors trying to "out" other editor's identity. -- Sparkzillatalk!06:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope
I'm not on Mahalo's payroll, I just noticed the Twitter post from Jason Calacanis did a quick search and I figured it's worth a mention in his bio (after all, we do try and include relevant information) -- Tawker22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't think you were on his payroll, but it's a distinct possibility that some other editors might be. There's nothing wrong with adding stuff that's properly sourced, but I am watching this very closely because a swarm of anonymous IPs have been trying to add that link to Mahalo. I just added it myself, since you provided that source, so hopefully that will make them happy.
I'd say it's notable enough per WEB that it's not speedy material. A quick Google news made it easy enough to reference and making the WSJ (in the news section, not the ads) usually is a pretty good indicator of notability. I think it's a fact of life that people edit articles possibly about themselves from just about everywhere, (up to and including the White House.) As long as the stuff they post is NPOV and referenced I don't see it being a massive problem. It's PR editing that becomes the problem. -- Tawker23:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalism by any standard
If you look at the edit I made to the Mahalo page, I added an internal link to the new Mahalo.com page - that's it. Clearly that falls within the boundaries of acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, does it not? Whether the new page survives speedy deletion or not is another matter. And for the record, I'm not a Mahalo insider, just someone watching the process unfold.
It might be best to avoid the "v word" when it's coming from an account w/ good edits. The "v word" is best reserved for page blanking , ALL CAPS additions and the likes like that. Good faith efforts (even if COI) don't exactly fit the definition. -- Tawker23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ok. But people can't just delete stuff from pages. That's pretty serious. I'll modify the warning later when I have a moment. JehochmanTalk01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to someone else to actually add it to the main page. I don't usually like adding articles I've edited, it kind of feels wrong to me. -- Tawker01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain me why you removed the link on the PageRank article? It doesn't violate WP:EL and it was there for more than a year. It explains the mathematics of the algorithm (e.g. Jacobi iteration). You said "Please discuss on the talk page" - I discussed the insertion of this link more than a year ago. However, the link was removed without any discussion. --Doc z11:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mahalo.com, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, sorry about the Search Engline Land delete AFD message. I looked on Google for more sources but couldn't find much. I reckon it'd be best merged with the CEO's main page.
I also noticed that you had some discussions and suggestions regarding the COI2 template. As a person who has recently been the subject of a COI discussion I feel that the current template does not reflect the policy well. I made a comment and a suggested text here [6] I didn't realise at the time that this issue had already been discussed extensively, but I would be interested in your comments nonetheless as I feel the current policy discourages new editors from trying to improve articles by finding more sources. Thank you. -- Sparkzillatalk!09:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call 'em like you see 'em. That's fine. Your logic is reasonable. As for the COI warning messages, I support changing them to include affirmative information about what COI editors can do to help improve articles in spite of a COI. JehochmanTalk12:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind writing a short comment supporting the addition of affirmative information about what COI editors can do to help improve articles in spite of a COI after my comment on the talk page? [7] Thanks. -- Sparkzillatalk!23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
== Dynamic Submission ==
Unlike you weak article, Dynamic Submission has real references in books that can be pick up at the local bookstore. Stating that this article is COI is like saying that if I write an article about MS windows and I work at a store that sells MS Window there is a conflict of interest. I think you are just attacking my article because I afd yours, and for good reason. Write a good article, and I would not object. I would even help! SEO & SEO is 90% of my day.
OK, let's work together then. I've written a good article, and a featured article, so I know how, but I am spread very thin. There are lots of Internet marketing articles that need attention, and I would welcome your help. JehochmanTalk13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help and I planned to help. You must understand that I received a lecture about how articles 'should' be written and how the cite's needed to be and if they did not meet the criteria to afd them. Stating this, I planned to help with the Internet Marketing article and help you rewrite the SEM article as an SEM article and not a subset of SEO but I need to get the cite's together. This is why I suggested the merge. It can always be seperated later when it gets big enough to stand on its own. I spent hours trying to figure out what I did wrong and I rewrote the Dynamic Software article using the Microsoft Office article as a template. I wrote this article because I own this product personally and it does a good job. Not because it is a product that we sell. We dont produce the product we just sell it like a store sells office. To prevent any coi complaint I did not put an external link to our site. So maybe you can help with this if you want to. My expertise is in Internet Marketing and Internet Access. I own an ISP called AKC, www.akc.com and yup we sell this product but there was no link to the akc website or dynamicsoftware.com site on the article and this product has not only primary cite's but also secondary cites, won awards, was written about in PC Magazine, is in Search Engine Optimazation for Dummies by Peter Kent, etc, etc. But every time I start working on it, it gets deleted for some reason or another. The problem is I truly believe it belongs in wiki.
Anyway, I just have not had time, but I will be back and will help you with the Internet Marketing article. I wanted you to merge the SEM article to the SEO article because the Internet Marketing article already has a cleanup tag on it and did not want it to be more complicated to get rid of it.
I am sorry if I have caused you any trouble. My concern with merging SEM into SEO is that it has to be done very, very carefully because SEO is a featured article and I don't want it to get messed up. Internet marketing is already a bit of a mess, so adding another section there won't make things much worse. Anyhow, if we do merge into SEO, the section could be called something like "Closely related fields" and cover SEM and social media marketing (another article in need of serious help). On a philosophical level, I am an inclusionist and prefer to keep articles around and fix them up instead of deleting.
I listed the article in Wikipedia:Deletion review to get it undeleted, maybe you can leave a comment there. I actually dont know. I never appealed to deletion review before.
I've already recovered the article! You can find it here: User:Jehochman/Sandbox. Let's work on this a bit, and then let me recreate the article in a day or two under my username. There's no need for undeletion. That will avoid any possible confusion going forward. Unfortunately, the first edit you ever made to Wikipedia create a strong appearance of COI with respect to this article. If I create the article, this makes it much less likely that it will be deleted again. JehochmanTalk17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum
Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk·contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.
The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.
The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.
While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:
Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.
Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.
Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn
and leave comments here. Thanks. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
