User talk:Ducatidesmo

Web discussion boards

I have removed web discussion boards from various motorcycle articles like Bianchi. Please do not add them back. Refer to the External Links Policy on discussion forums if you think I'm incorrect. Also please come discuss this issue with us on the WikiProject Motorcycling page. We realize that information in web forums can be valuable and there's a proposal in the air that complies with Wikipedia policy. Thanks. -- Brianhe 16:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto and again to Bianchi (motorcycles). Brianhe 01:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is totally Ridiculous

Point 1) The other links given have absolutely nothing to do with Bianchi motorcycles They only deal with what Bianchi currently makes, which are Bicycles. They have nothing to do with Bianchi motorcycles, nothing at all, except the name.

Point 2)Through reading the Links normally to be avoided I have come to the conclusion that my forum doesnt meet any of the points given for removal:

1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. My place has a classifieds section, a registry for Bianchis and technical discussion, also if a boardmember needs a part for ANY Bianchi I can advise him and point him in the direction of these hard to find parts, including pistons, which are as rare as hens teeth for most Bianchis now.

2)Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". No unaccurate information given on my forum, I am currently writing up a History of the marque from reading books and talking to many people. The wikipedia article is the one that gives misleading information(i.e. Giving a link to Bianchi bicycles which as I mentioned above have absolutely nothing to do with the now defunct motorcycles.)

3) Links mainly intended to promote a website Mine does not promote any website.

4)Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources My site/Me/My members do not profit in any way, as previously mentioned I only point them in the direction of these hard to find Bianchi Parts and share information on them, I make no financial gain from that messgae board.

5)Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Now, Mine has very little advertising, only related things and I am also planning to pay pro-boards to make my message board add-free

6)Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. Mine does not, a guest can view anything on the message board, they can post as a guest also, they dont have to register, everything that is availible to board memebers is availible to guests also.

7)Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. ANYBODY can view my site, no matter what browser etc they have.

8)Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. All the info is on my message board for anyone to read, see and/or comment on. Flash or Java is NOT required to view relevant content.

9)Links to search engine and aggregated results pages I chose not to include a Google search on my message board and it also has no links to aggregated results pages.

10)Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. No links to those whatsoever.

11)Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. None of those whatsoever.

12)Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. No links to open wiki's.

13)Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

Its funny that my site which is directly linked to Bianchi Motorcycles has been taken down while the ones indirectly related to Bianchis(ie The Bicycles)have stayed up.

One last thing: If Bianchi motorcycle owners(like myself) and enthusiasts cannot help other enthusuiasts and prospective Bianchi owners and those who seek information, who can?

I have spent quite a while writing this response as I feel my link being taken down is unfair. I expect an equally expansive response from yourself.

I really think this is more productive to discuss on the WikiProject Motorcycles discussion page (see link in my original note above). If you can convince them, I'm fine with that. As of now I'm holding with the group consensus on external links. Brianhe 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Don-Johnson-Heart-Beat-298755.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Don-Johnson-Heart-Beat-298755.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Street Hawk

So what do Probert and Cobb's websites have to do with the programme? They may have designed the bike, but that doesn't mean we should promote their site. That wouldn't even be permitted in their own articles, even though, at a guess, the links are probably in their articles. - Dudesleeper Talk 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proberts site shows many pics of the bike being put together and is a great resource as he shows his many original design ideas for the bike too. THAT is a link that should stay. I didnt put them up to 'promote' the sites, I just wanted to give fans looking for whatever they needed possible links that could help them. I have put the link to my own site back up as it showcases my replica build. I and the site are a great resource for fans, not tooting my horn here but they are viable and useful links.

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ducatidesmo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Ryan Delafonte Hawke - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ryan Delafonte Hawke for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryan Delafonte Hawke is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Delafonte Hawke until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. joe decker^{talk to me} 15:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)