User talk:Klmccorry

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Space: 1999, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Immunity Syndrome. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

External link
Hi, the external link you've added twice to Rocket Robin Hood here and here seems a little self-serving to me. Care to explain, in case I'm just not getting how it is consistent with WP:ELNO, specifically #11? Feel free to reply here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I was hoping that you'd reply before driving more traffic to your website. I was eager that you'd have a compelling argument. Anyhow, another user, has removed your website from Rocket Robin Hood for not being consistent with WP:ELNO. Since you haven't provided a compelling explanation, I'm going to remove links to your website from the remaining articles at Wikipedia that contain them. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly simple. The first time I sent the external link, I didn't see it appear on the page for the Wikipedia article (not on my computer, at least). So, assuming it was not received, that the connection had timed-out and the sent link did not reach Wikipedia, after waiting a couple of days, I sent it again. That's all. It's not an arrogant wish on my part to have two links to the same Web page under External Links.

And I didn't see your Talk message before later sending the other links to other pages. And it has taken me some time to figure out how to use this Talk function. I'm still not sure I'm using it correctly.

I am, I must say, very taken aback to see every link I sent get deleted under the assumption that I intended to SPAM your site.

For nearly 20 years now, I have worked on building my Website, refining it, improving it. Both in terms of text and images. I have researched tirelessly for a TV listings project (example: http://kevinmccorrytv.ca/lifestorytvlist0.html). I would hardly call that SPAM. My sources there are verifiable. I have written insightful articles on cartoons and insightful overviews of TV series. I am thorough and I refrain from the biting snarkiness that tends to mar most fan sites. I'm not just some fan who makes a Web page as a lark. Nor am I a blogger who just casually brings up the occasional item to heap sarcasm or scorn on it.

My Rocket Robin Hood Page, for instance, was written in 1998. There were no other serious Websites dedicated to that show at the time. Same notation for Spider-Man (1967). Over the years, I have had correspondence from an animator and from the son of the late dialogue director (Bernard Cowan) of both shows. My Website is evidently still the only one that has a constructive outlook on those programs, accentuating the positive wherever possible. I don't resort to heaps of snarkily cantankerous "dissing" like some fan sites do. SpiderFan.org's treatment of Spider-Man (1967) for example.

My article on "Hyde and Hare" (whose External Link was rejected) is still the only one in existence that lauds that cartoon for its artistry.

I have undertaken to help Wikipedia using my TV listing researches and have done so as regards Canadian network TV programming, simultaneous to adding less than a dozen External Hyperlinks to the Web pages that I host. I fail to see why it's a cardinal sin to want to increase the visibility of my Web pages and the information and insights on them. They are, after all, the product of nearly 20 years of dedication. Oughtn't they to have value to people interested in expanding their knowledge and awareness of the material?

That's my case. Whether I have argued it effectively or convincingly or provided a compelling enough explanation, is for you to judge. That's all.(talk) 18:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)