User talk:Spcoon

Film
You are promoting your own film, which is against the rules. Even if it were someone else's film, the site is still an inducement to try to get people to buy something, so it's spam, which is also against the rules. That one item you corrected, go ahead and re-correct it... but if I find it's also spam, then it will also be gone. Wahkeenah 06:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it isn't my film. Secondly, the site isn't an inducement to try to get people to buy anything. There's a link to a 7 minute excerpt of the film, which is chock full of pertinent infomation to the case of 11/3/79... for free. The site has a single PayPal button on the bottom of the side bar and not a mention elsewhere. And on top of it all, the filmmaker -- my brother -- spent seven years of his life producing the film, on his own dime; all for the cause of shedding light on this atrocity. You really need to lighten up, man. This is nothing but a good link. As for the other link, *you* go fix it. I did so in the first place, trying to improve the quality of the page. You're the one that indescriminately flipped it back. Spcoon 04:27, 11 May 2006 (EST) You "could be wrong." So why are you deleting the link? There are three books found in the same section, all with ISBN numbers displayed. Unless the Wikipedia audience has reverted it's behavior to using physical libraries, I assume they're included to help purchase the books online. This page says as much, "This page links to catalogs of libraries, booksellers, and other book sources where you will be able to search for the book with ISBN ..." The Greensboro Justice Fund is also listed, with a prominent online donation link found on the home page. How many examples across Wikipedia do I need to find? If you'd like me to get a moderator involved I will, but I'd greatly appreciate it if you saved our collective time by just allowing the link to stand. Thanks.Spcoon 15:33, 13 May 2006 (EST)
 * So it's your bro's film. It's still promotional. As far as whether it's totally forbidden by wiki policy, I could be wrong. You need to find an Admin and plead your case. Wahkeenah 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I had added the following item to the Greensboro Massacre page, and thought I had added it here also, but must not have saved it. Meanwhile, if you have uncovered other links you think are also spam, you should delete them as well.

I asked an Admin about your external link, and this is what she said... Wahkeenah 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Tough call. On the one hand, the film does seem to have won a couple of festival awards, but they appear to me to be pretty minor. I am disturbed by the fact that 1) the link is to a blog, as I don't feel those are usually appropriate unless it's a very well-known one, and 2) it does have that Paypal link at the bottom, which makes it lean toward the commercial end of the spectrum.  I personally believe you're justified in removing the link. Having said that, remember that an admin's word is not law. Have you considered asking for some possibly consensus-building discussion at WP:RfC, or at WP:SPAM? I'd rather see a little more discussion than have you and User:Spcoon get into an edit war.  Joyous | Talk 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favor and read this post: The Future Of Documentaries. The Greensboro Massacre narrative is continuing, both myself and my brother are loosely involved with the TRC process and live in the community. For you to stick to such broad definitions of spam to not include this link, well, its a bit pathetic. Do what you feel is right. "Minor film festivals" "Not a well-known blog". Amazing. I didn't know the wikipedia community was so elitist.Spcoon 18:07, 13 May 2006 (EST)
 * I said before that I could be wrong, but after reading Joy's response and the wiki rules, I am fairly certain that I'm right. Promoting original works is against wiki rules. I didn't make the rules. I don't much like some of the rules myself, but I'm not paying for the site's servers. Feel free to take your complaints about the rules to the rulemakers. Wahkeenah 22:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favor and explain to me why you're not killing the links to the books and the non-profit site? Why only the documentary? Spcoon 19:28, 13 May 2006 (EST)
 * Because they were already there. If you think they're spam, kill 'em yourself. Wahkeenah 23:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's logic; you hawk over this page as if you have a personal stake in the content, delete my link 3 times within minutes after each successive post -- even though you are unsure of your rationale -- yet you refuse to manage the rest of the page in a consistent fashion. What's your angle? Getting off on indescriminate flexing?Spcoon 01:25, 14 May 2006 (EST)


 * I've listed this page at Requests for comment/History and geography, so that we can get a wider sense of opinions here. Spcoon, I hope you don't have the impression that anyone is "out to get you"; we simply seem to have a genuine difference of opinion of what constitutes advertising. I'd like to get some other opinions, not just for this article, but for other disputes that may arise in the future. Joyous | Talk 15:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

July 2007
A tag has been placed on Molly McGinn, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Precious Roy 17:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Molly McGinn
I have deleted the article as reposted content that was previously deleted through a deletion discussion (Articles for deletion/Molly McGinn). The content was largely unchanged from the version that was deleted in that discussion, and thus you may not recreate the deleted content without either addressing the problems raised in the discussion or bringing it to deletion review. Leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Leebo  T / C  12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaranda was the one to originally delete the article per criterion A7, which concerns assertions of notability. I deleted it because it was reposted content, rather than per that original decision. If you want to contact Jaranda, he can probably give you additional insight or help you put it up for deletion review.  Leebo  T / C  15:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Molly-mcginn.jpg


The file File:Molly-mcginn.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Uploaded for Molly McGinn. No other use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 02:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)