Sugarskane

Links to personal site

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on your links

Per your email, I thought it would be fair to request a second opinion on your link additions. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding commercial links to Wikipedia, as you did in Check washing. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sugarskane: I can see you've followed our agreement and posted some links to talk pages. Please slow down a bit though - consider perhaps adding other content to articles or doing other work here. Let the discussions you've begun take their course. There's a lot of things we need help with here, you might find something else to spark your interest that would be a great help to the project. Check out the "to do lists" at Wikipedia:Community Portal --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dan: I'm all done =) I didn't add anything new -- just added to the talk pages of where I posted previously. Thanks for your help.

Removing comments

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I had no idea that I'd removed content. I didn't mean to remove anything -- just post something new. Sorry. --Sugarskane 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you use the "Show changes" button before hitting "save", you'll see exactly what your edit will change on the page. By using that button you can prevent inadvertantly removing content. You can also use the history option on any page to see afterwards what your edit did to the article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for the help. --Sugarskane 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of a new tutorial entry

• I would like to nominate http://www.celtickane.com/programming/code/ajax.php for the Ajax tutorials page. It includes an intentionally small library (1KB), and is specifically designed to teach Ajax, and how to custom build a library, rather than have a designer rely on a prebuilt library that is too bloated to be of educational significance.

--Sugarskane 14:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit history suggests that you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote your personal site. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for more info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jamie, there is a difference between posting relevant information and promoting a personal site. Any post I've made have been completely relevant to the article -- I have not spammed in the sense that I've added the same link to multiple websites. As far as the Wikipedia stance on things, here is my response:

• [WP:SPAM (How not to be a spammer)] - 1) My intentions are to add relevant information to the article. If someone were to go to the Ajax page, looking to learn about Ajax, I think Feather Ajax is a great way to get started -- I wrote Feather Ajax so that people could learn from it, not to promote myself. 2) The only way I could add 'cited text' is to add the actual Javascript and PHP source -- which seems a bit too technical for the article. You clearly have more Wikipedia knowledge than I do -- if you believe that adding the source code and citing the website would be better, then I will certainly do that. 3) Not relevant (reference section). 4) Not relevant (I didn't create the article). 5) Not relevant (I didn't add to the top) 6) I'm currently posting to the talk page because I do feel that my article is relevant 7) Not relevant (I don't have a signature to my knowledge)
• [WP:EL]

1. (What Should be Linked to) "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks." -- I would consider the actual source code to be textbook-esque. In other words, the source code for an ajax library is probably too technical for a basic article, which is why I believe an external link is required.
2. (Occasionally acceptable links) At the bottom of the Feather Ajax link, here is a Creative Commons Deed, allowing for Attribution, Non-Commercial, and Share-Alike. There is no copyright issues, and the library is intended to be improved upon in a non-commercial way.
3. (Links normally to be avoided) 1) Feather Ajax does provide a unique resource that would be too complicated for a background article on Ajax. 2) There is no innacurate or unverifiable material within the link. 3) Yes, I own the link -- which is why I'm using the Discussion page. It is important to point out, however, that there are no point of view or neutrality concerns with something like Ajax -- no opinions are discussed within the link. 4) The link doesn't sell any products or services, and doesn't ask the user for any money. 5) The link is universally accessible. 6) The link doesn't require a special program to view. 7) Not applicable -- no foreign language. 8) Not applicable -- not a bookstore site. 9) It's not a blog, social networking site, etc.

Please keep in mind that not all external links are 'bad links'. According to your profile it seems that you take a lot of pride in cleaning up Wikipedia...I think that's a great thing, but not at the expense of going on a witch hunt for anything that is remotely similar to what might be considered spam. Keep in mind that an overarching principle of an external link is to provide material that isn't present, or shouldn't be posted, in the article. I don't think I should post the source code to the Feather Ajax library, even though it's tiny, because the article is designed for a background of Ajax, not a descriptive source code. I would like you to please reconsider, especially based on the above reasons. I've clearly looked over the links you posted, and I still feel that the link should remain.

Sugarskane 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My issue is that you have a personal site with Google ads that you have added to numerous articles (about 15 different articles). Had you only added links to only one or two articles, I doubt anyone would have noticed or cared. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add content to Wikipedia, please do so by adding that content not by linking to your personnal, for-profit website. Pascal.Tesson 17:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I respect your opinion. In my defense, I posted the external links because I felt that they were pertinent to the article -- not because I had high aspirations of making hundreds of dollars on ads. I make close to no money on ads -- about $5 a month -- which pays for my hosting fee. That would classify my website non-for-profit, as I have never received any money from the ads and pocketed the money. Regardless of all of that -- it seems that the general consensus is that content must be added to the articles. With that in mind, I have no problem adding content, as I am very passionate about the articles on my website, but I think it would only be fair to add the related links as references to the content that I add. Please post your opinions. Sugarskane 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites are not considered a reliable source and should be avoided whenever possible when citing. If you can find another website that meets WP:RS criteria, feel free to use that as a citation --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are concerned about it not being a reliable source, then we are back to adding it as an external link of some type. Let's use AOL Instant Messenger as an example, since most everyone should be familiar with it. How is it valid that any of those links are posted, with the exception of anything for http://aim.com or aol.com (official sites)? Many of them link to "personal projects" of some type, which are primary sources, and have not been verified. What would make this any different from what I am trying to do? I would argue that there is no difference, and that it has long been the policy of Wikipedia to allow such content, and will continue to be so. --Sugarskane 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And while I'm actively finger pointing, why don't we examine the links currently on the Ajax page?

->http://www.xul.fr/en-xml-ajax.html has google ads, is not linked to a reliable source, etc. ->http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/javascript/ajax.html is a blog-like entry with content that could easily be put into the Wiki article instead of an external link Please be consistent and fair. --Sugarskane 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Though ideally external links should also be reliable sources, ELs are not held to quite the same standard. That being said though, WP:SPAM and WP:EL cover the addition of links to a website you run or maintain.

I agree with you, however, that there is an abundance of inappropriate external links throughout Wikipedia. That is the primary reason the WikiProject Spam began! If you see links that you feel are inappropriate, by all means please feel free to help us and remove them if they are clearly inappropriate. If there's any doubt, mention it on the article's talk page and let discussion determine if they should be removed. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on your most recent post, I believe we can reach a common ground. Would you accept the following compromise? 1) I won't post anything related to celtickane.com anymore onto article pages. 2) Any posts I do make will be completely restricted to the 'discussion'/'talk' page. 3) Third party users can elect to add a relevant celtickane.com page to an external links section, should they decide that they feel it belongs there. 4) If a third party user adds a celtickane.com link, you won't revert the changes and start the argument over again.

It seems that the consensus I've reached within our discussion is that you don't like the fact that I've added my own links, and I don't like that I can't add relevant links. If I'm not adding them, but they're being placed on anyway, it seems that this would please both parties. --Sugarskane 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if a group of other established editors determine the link is useful enough to include in the EL section I have no problem with it then. Consensus is what drives the project --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be adding my request to the talk pages -- thank you for our discussion. Unless you have further matters, I'm considering it closed =) --Sugarskane 03:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Only a request: please use this method in moderation, and be patient - some talk pages aren't very active, with no one replying to messages for weeks and sometimes months. It is on the record though and eventually it will be seen. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a small talk page to the articles in which my EL's were removed from -- I'm considering the matter closed and I have no intention of 'reposting' requests or anything like that...I'm assuming it will take time given, and that's fine =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarskane (talk • contribs)

Regarding your 4-point proposal; I'm not sure if I (or everyone else) can agree to all points. It would be trivial for you to ask a friend to anonymously re-add any/all of those links. I'm certainly not dead set on excluding all links to your site (and would not have thought anything of it had you not linked to it from 15 articles), but I'm not really interested in making a "deal" either. I will respect anything that appears to be a genuine consensus from neutral parties.

You have a well-designed site with some neat content, but according to your stats page, you're getting a large amount of your hits from Wikipedia. We need to be fair and try to apply the same standards to everyone. It's fairly typical when I go about reverting a bunch of links from one user, I remove some others while I'm at it....they can accumulate quite quickly. ;) I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issues in a friendly manner. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Statistics page was recently reset when I recreated the site -- I do get hits from Wikipedia, but usually not to this amount. I believe a good number of them have accumulated because of the recent debate. I have no intention of asking anyone (friends or otherwise) to add any of those links -- I've added my request to the talk page and the matter is finished -- if someone else wants them, then they can put them up. As I've said, I added them for the betterment of the article, not my website. The deal I made was more to reach a consensus so that I don't have an 'edit war' with anyone -- people will change articles on their own, regardless of any deal -- I just don't want to waste my time reverting histories over and over again. Jamie, I appreciate your efforts to clean up Wikipedia -- but may I make one suggestion? You seem like a very reasonable person, so would you be willing to look at one or two of the links you've removed, and reevaluate its validity on its respective article? I have a hard time accepting that all 15 links were misplaced ... perhaps you could reexamine things and add one or two of the most valuable external links? If you would rather not, that's fine -- it just seems like it would be a nice thing to do to show that you aren't just on an external links rampage, but are looking out for the content of Wikipedia's articles too =) --Sugarskane 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll review them. However, I have to ask; why is it so important to you that Wikipedia link to your site? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Does anyone have any objections to moving this discussion elsewhere? (It's a lot of non-Ajax stuff cluttering up the Ajax talk page). How about your talk page, Sugarskane? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

I have to agree that most of the discussion should be moved to the WikiProject Spam talk page (even if it will be a bit redundant there). Pascal.Tesson 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do I just cut and paste? It's important because the links that I've made are extremely relevant and useful to the articles in which they were posted. If you don't think a link is relevant -- then don't worry about it. If a link is relevant, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to repost it. I'll cut and paste to my talk page if that's the best way to do it. --Sugarskane 12:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ajax External Link Inclusion

Relevance is not the only issue. I have a personal site; I can just as easily create a bunch of info pages on various subjects, throw up some Google ads, and argue that they are relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. Inclusion criteria is more weighted on notability of links or a link that presents something unique. Your check washing experiment might be an example of something that you wouldn't find elsewhere on the web, but there are hundreds of Ajax programming examples all over the Web, many from Ajax-dedicated sites more notable than yours. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to find a 1KB Ajax library. I will absolutely agree that there are plenty more Ajax programming examples all over the web, with authors that know a lot more than I ever will, but I've gone through plenty of Ajax tutorial and came out frustrated. Because of my frustration, I decided to create my own library that would be easy to use, and easy to learn from. This library is one of the best options for people who are brand new to Ajax, but want to learn it. There are really two types of tutorials for Ajax -- extremely simple tutorials, which just show a basic guideline but don't provide a useable Javascript library framework, and ridiculously complex tutorial that have an enormous library, but are difficult to understand or learn for a novice. I feel that Feather Ajax bridges the two types of examples -- it's complete enough to be used as a production library (as I have on my own website), but not so complex that it is difficult to read and understand. That is why I think it's applicable for addition -- not because it is the best example of Ajax, because it is not. --Sugarskane 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Need for more infos

I have reviewed your framework in the goal to complete the Ajax_framework page. I have created this article and want it become a reference about frameworks.
I am not convinced because the library (it is not really a framework) is very basic, and It doesn't allow to store data on the server. But perhaps I have missed something. Apparently there are only the common functions to open an XMLHttpRequest session? Am I wrong? Booles 06:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The primary purpose of FeatherAjax was to make something extremely simple, so that the programmer didn't have to worry about complex Javascript libraries. As far as storing data on the server, that would be the job of the server side script. For example, I could have FeatherAjax send a request of "mypage.php?action=savedata&data=123", and within the PHP script I could have something like: if ($_GET[action] == "savedata") { SaveDataFunction("$_GET[data]); }. I would find it difficult to describe FeatherAjax as a framework -- it is certainly more of a library of functions wrapped into a class. Unfortunately, "Ajax Framework" is often synonymous with "Ajax Library" -- I'll let you decide what to do =) --Sugarskane 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand and this may be useful for people with slow connexion. But on the other hand, if the library is too simple, this is something any programmer can write itself! The ideal should be a complete library or framework, with a limited interface and minimal knowledge required to use it. Booles 12:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an author can certainly write FeatherAjax themself. It's clearly designed to be as light weight as possible, but also to serve as a good teaching aid for people who would like to jump into Ajax, but don't yet have the programming ability. It's designed to be added upon by the end user to meet their own specific needs. --Sugarskane 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)