User talk:Serps

Hi Terry

Is there a good reason why you think the link to the serps competition winner belongs on the SERPS page rather than the serps competition page? I can think of two good reasons why it shouldn't:

The winner will change on a frequent basis
There is already a long on serps competition

DJ Clayworth 17:20, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

~~== Vandal! ==~~

Your site is currently top ranked on google in the nigritude ultramarine competition. I have a good idea why now. Kim Bruning 22:36, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply any information to back up the claims you are implying? My posting history is here for all wikipedians to see, just because you disagree with me, does not give you the right to accus me of being a vandal.

Serps 21:40 18 May 2004 (GMT)

The accusation was originally based on: [1], which shows you using several wikipedia pages to (apparently) push the pagerank of your site. Kim Bruning 22:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any? If so you will see I provided on-topic information which has been backed up and supported by other wikipedians. If you follow the story, you will see that other competitors in the competitions were abusing the original information I had provided, by vandalizing my pages and including links to their pages. This is the main reason I have not written anything at wikipedia about the Nigritude Ultramarine competition. I knew that if I did it would just attract more spammers here.Serps 00:15 19 May 2004 (GMT)

I did. Hmm, so you're basically saying you've been framed? I've since checked the edit history under the IP you're currently using (did you notice you're not logged in? ), and that *does* look a bit more sane, yes. Kim Bruning 23:26, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as you can see, a number of the pages were originally created by me 195. There were no objections at the time, the problems started when other competitors started abusing them. I cannot be sure, but I don't think I have posted here for about 2 weeks (I could be wrong. After the competitions are over I intend to update the pages and provide a little more information on the subject. Serps 00:40 19 May 2004 (GMT)

Okay, well let's see, as 195.92.194.18, you do seem to have created Serps competition, with a link to a site which currently is doing errr... surprisingly well in the nigritude ultramarine competition. :-)

Could be you simply saw nothing wrong with this at the time, so then I can't directly accuse you of being a vandal. I do now believe that it might not be a good idea to link to that kind of pages, after having had to deal with a number vandalizations in that vein. Would you be willing to discuss? Kim Bruning 23:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am always willing to discuss, that is the beauty of the internet. it offers a great a way to discuss, and provide information on just about any topic. The Serps competition began in January and ended in April. I used the index page of my website for the competition. The Nigritude Ultramarine competition began on 7th May and ends on 7th June (and July, it is in 2 stages), for this competition I am using an internal page from the same website. The competition is for a page, not for a site, and they are 2 seperate pages for 2 seperate competitions. The reason my new one is doing surprisingly well, is because I am very good at what I do. The link in Serps competition used to point to my serps competition page, it has never pointed to my Nigritude page, as you should be able to confirm. I agree it is no longer advisable to link to other competition pages, this only attracts more vandals, and as you will see I have not posted any links to any competition pages since April 15th. The only link I have tried to install is the one in Search_engine_optimization which I bought up in the discussion page. This is not a link to a competition page, that competition ended on 16th April. And I still feel it is a legitimate link to have there.Serps 01:10 19 May 2004 (GMT)

Elizabeth[edit]

Hi there. I removed the archive of Christmas messages as the link is to a page for an advertising/SEO company, which seems to me to be somewhat against where we should be sending people. I probably didn't explain myself well in the relevant edit summary. — [ roux ] [x] 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that site isn't used for advertising or SEO it is just an old virtually dormant site that is rarely used anymore. It has been on wikipedia since 2004 featuring all the Queens Christmas messages, and hs never been moaned about before. It has an archive of all the Christmas messages since 1996 and is AAA compliant. If you do insist on its removal, please find an equally good archive to link to, as if you ask any UK Citizen to name 3 things about the Queen I expect the majority will mention the Christmas message Serps 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]