User talk:Ownlyanangel

You're mostly right about the Adoption in the United States article - it was hived off from the main adoption article by someone in a rather arbitrary manner while the latter was getting some serious work done on it. Nonetheless, many of the external links you removed from there and the main adoption article are very valid and useful resources for anyone researching the subject. I've restored them to both. Bastun 15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing links on talk pages
May I suggest that you do not modify other people's comments on talk pages [by removing external links]? Talk pages are not indexed by search engines and misrepresenting other people by editing their good-faith comments is not appropriate IMHO. Of course, it is a good thing to keep an eye on linkspam on article pages. Han-Kwang 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Some further information. The wikimedia software now tags external links in all namespaces (with the exception of the main article namespace) with rel=nofollow tags. So even if the talk pages are indexed by search engines, the sites get no page rank benefit from it. If the sites are particularly spammy, you could consider removing the brackets from around them to turn them into text. Other than that, removing parts of other comments should not be done unless you are removing personal attacks and you should leave a comment documenting those changes.


 * I'm rabidly anti-spam myself and spend much of my time trimming links and warning/blocking spammers, so I do understand your motivations. --GraemeL (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure anymore about the indexing. Google does not show any article talk pages, but Yahoo does. There are no robots.txt entries nor meta robots tags that indicate that prevent indexing, so I'm not sure why. Anyway, the nofollow argument is valid and supported by Google, Yahoo, and MSN search. Han-Kwang 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Sahara links
===>Spam Many of these links are not spam, and I see no good reason why they should be removed. For instance, two of the links are official sites of the Moroccan and Sahrawi governments. In point of fact, I don't see any links that were added to promote a website, product, or service. How are any of these spam? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing external links
Before removing anymore external links from articles, be sure to read through WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Thanks.-- Andeh 07:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the links you removed from Spyware are not really considered to be spam according to WP:EL. Which is why I reverted your edit. Also removing large sums of links which isn't blatant spam should be mentioned on the talk page of the article.-- Andeh 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, nobody is attacking anyone here. Articles don't 'belong' to anyone, see WP:OWN for more information on this. Yes Wikipedia isn't a Web Directory but this doesn't mean you can't link to web directories from it. I assume your referring to the Spyware article, as this subject is very large and is internet related, many users may seek additional information, the external links have been carefully chosen to give them more info. Don't forget to stay cool. :)-- Andeh 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If really feel you must remove the two web directories then I don't mind. Because they don't offer any additional information regarding the subject, just more links to 'other' good sites.-- Andeh 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List of PDF software
Hi. Regarding your recent removal of the external links section in the article List of PDF software. Of all the links on that page you decided to remove the link to the Open Directory Project (Dmoz). I think this shows a serious misunderstanding about the external links guidelines. I have read elsewhere that you say that Wikipedia is not a link directory. This is absolutely true, and no article should consist solely or predominantly of external links, however that does not prevent linking to a directory. In many cases linking to Dmoz is absolutely the most efficient way of getting external information to the reader, and at the same time preventing spam. Dmoz in particular falls well within the external links guidelines. Please consider your edits more carefully. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
Good work on the spam fighting-- it's exhausting, and often unappreciated, but it really has to be done. After all, if "Wikipedia makes the internet not suck", it's largely because it is ad-free.

One suggestion I would make, though, is to use Edit summaries. If you do, I would suggest avoiding descriptions such as "remove spam", at least until you've found a for-sure spammer-- people may take less offense if you say "remove comm link", "remove unneeded link", etc., and it can help to add "see WP:EL".

If you find yourself getting into arguments with people defending the links you're removing, you could borrow some text from the top of User:Mwanner/Useful_Stuff. And drop me a note if you need a second editor to back you up (except for the next 2-3 weeks: I'll be away).

Anyway, good luck, and happy spam fighting! -- Mwanner | Talk 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why oh why did you remove informative links?
for example, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XML_editor&diff=61349794&oldid=61332423 this is not spam. it is relevant examples of what the article is talking about.

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not remove official links from articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Aang
The copy-editing you did to Aang destroyed some of the references. I'm not sure what you did, were you going to go back and fix something? Please reply below on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit Request
I am sorry to bother you but you did such a great job on copyediting Aang that I really wanted to make one more request for you. Could you please copyedit the Blue's Clues article. It is currently an FAC and an editor suggested it should be copyedited. I would appreciate it greatly. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We're copyediting the same page
Haha, I was so sure that no one else would be touching Nova Iguaçu Volcano while I was working on it that I didn't put GOCEinuse on it. Well, please respond here and let me know when I can put my changes in. - Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, that figures. What are the chances.  I am all done, so feel free to go at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ownlyanangel (talk • contribs) 08:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1994–95 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Reunion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)