User talk:Biggerthanthat

Welcome!

 * }

September 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Desborough has been reverted. Your edit here to Desborough was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38PfTRQlJzQ) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Gasification
You obviously feel very strongly about the gasification plans in Desborough. However, the Desborough Wikipedia article isn't the place to air those views, at least not in the way you're currently going about it. The content you're adding is far too long (doubling the size of the article), contains much which is irrelevant and/or not written in the style of an encyclopaedia, and isn't the objective summary of the topic which Wikipedia requires. If you keep re-adding the same information, it will be removed every time by other editors and eventually an administrator will probably be persuaded to block your user.

That's not to say you can't make any reference to the controversy in the article, but you can't turn it into a campaign against the proposal. You ought to be OK with a short summary of the proposal and a statement that it's controversial, both referenced. A link to the Facebook page might also be tolerated (though other editors may disagree with me on that!)  Neiltonks (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)