User talk:T-Bomb77

Welcome!

 * }

April 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Suicide (band) has been reverted. Your edit here to Suicide (band) 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 (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhEYy-fLbAOvW3E0OLxOcWSwZyncof35-) 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) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Alan Vega, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to Alan Vega 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 (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhEYy-fLbAOvW3E0OLxOcWSwZyncof35-) 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) 13:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Television (band). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Your edit here to Television (band) 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 (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhEYy-fLbAOuXexa7fkRFplhyiAQOWUgK) 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) 13:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Television (band), you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Television (band) was changed by T-Bomb77 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.851263 on 2013-04-26T14:21:43+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why I am receiving these incorrect messages
The links that I have provided as external links are the most in-depth interviews available on 1. Alan Vega from Suicide, 2. Richard Lloyd from Television and 3. Richard Hell - I own all the copyright on them, they are not in any way spam but in fact a complete oral history of the bands from the figures involved, and their interviews clear up many inaccuracies spread across the web (and on Wikipedia itself) So what is the issue - this is not spam, it's the most vital external link that could possibly exist. T-Bomb77 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, it's vital. But in our opinion, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Thusly, we don't just take all "oral history" links, nor all interviews as external links. Most of the time, external links are reserved for the band's own website if they have one, or links to social media of the band. Not for people to go spam in their links to promote their oral histories. gwickwire  talk editing 16:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Confused by your inappropriate tone
But this seems faulty reasoning. It's not "my" oral history, these are unbroken interviews with the artists in question - this will be vital to anyone wanting to hear from the very people the Wikipedia page is about. On the "Television (band)" page, there is one link to MP3.com - a totally random link that gives you yet another 'summary' of the band's history. There is nothing else. No other links. Almost every link to music albums on the whole of your site contains external links to reviews from commercial magazine sites, such as Rolling Stone etc., nothing at all to do with the artist's own sites or social media. Whereas my link provided the interested reader with a access point to two hours of discussion (each artist!), by the band members themselves, of the entire history of the band and the culture surrounding it. With no other external links available to the interested reader, surely this kind of in-depth, detailed and nuanced discussion of the history summarised in the main Wikipedia text is exactly what should be provided - not 'Spam', but instead the direct contribution of the subjects of the article themselves. Why don't you watch the videos and actually make an assessment? Or do you not have an interest in historically and contextually important material, rather than substandard links to minor information? I wonder what the average Wikipedia user would think?

T-Bomb77 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, it's your opinion that it's vital. Reviews are different than super long interview videos/sound-clips. You are of the opinion that it's vital and correct, but I'm telling you that it's inappropriate, as you've been told before. It's not appropriate to just link to random interviews in the external links. gwickwire  talk editing 17:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk, communication is at the heart of Wikipedia, no?
I understand that this is 'my opinion', but also there must be some kind of qualification based on your assessment to prove that is not simply also 'your opinion', and one without much weight in contradicting mine. The areas that you obviously raise as problematic are that that it is a) Spam, b) Inappropriate and c) Random. I'll tackle each of these individually, and then, rather than a two line response, could you possibly offer some evidence of your thinking regarding these issues.

a) It's not 'Spam', in the case of the link it is entirely relevant to the subject matter of the page (example one - an in-depth interview with Alan Vega, on the page for the band 'Suicide', which he formed and is still one of only two members of, example two - Richard Lloyd, guitarist for the band Television during their most fertile and celebrated period [1974-1979]). On Wikipedia's definition of 'Spam' it states the following - "Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, especially advertising, indiscriminately. While the most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media." This is not a bulk message, it is not advertising (as it really is a free to view interview with the page's Subject Matter), and it is not indiscriminate. The link has not been sent to any other site save for Wikipedia and has been personally placed there by the director of said interviews.

b) Inappropriate. This I find the most confusing - how on earth could this be inappropriate? On what grounds is that assessment being made? Let's compare this valuable external link to other pages currently running on Wikipedia - in fact, let's not move too far from the subject matter. The page on 'Alan Vega' for example. Here are the External Links it contains -

Official Web Page Biography of Alan Vega on ZE Records Official Website VegA'rt – Art by Alan Vega Alan Vega – Infinite Mercy Slideshow of the 2009 Lyon retrospective. Infinite Mercy – Aide à la visite Guide to the 2009 Lyon retrospective. Suicide Watch – Village Voice interview for Collision Drive installment (2002) Calling All Stations! – ReGen magazine interview (2007) Tony Fletcher & Alan Vega – All Hopped Up and Ready to Go Brooklyn Public Library – Dec 10 2009. Alan Vega Synesthesia Interview film by Tony Oursler

Now I understand your preference for Official pages, as proven by the first three links here. But what about Tony Fletcher's discussion with Alan Vega - I know Tony personally, and also know that these discussions were organised to promote the release of his book on New York Music book 'All Hopped Up and Ready to Go', a defiantly commercial (if historically interesting) enterprise. What about the Interview Film with Alan Vega - not at all unlike the video interviews I was linking to. How are these appropriate, and my links not?

c) Random. As explained earlier, how on earth could in-depth interviews with the subject matters of your brief Wikipedia articles be 'random'. They would be the least random thing that you could possibly imagine, surely? Even more appropriate than an Official Page that may be trying to advertise new product and generate profit, surely? They're the actual subject matter of the article, discussing in detail the events summarised in that same article.

Please explain...

T-Bomb77 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason it was spam is after you were told to stop, you continued, after 3 messages saying to stop. That's why it was spamming the link.
 * The reason it's inappropriate is Wikipedia isn't a collection of links and WP:External links. We don't just take links because they're related, we take links based on whether they belong.
 * Random - How is this different than an interview I do with this person? If I publish that interview, can I then add it and all other interviews? No. Because of "not a collection of links".
 * Things go in External Links because they are the official, external links to the official, external pages. Not because someone wants to put their thing there. We have External links for those who come here looking for, say, Dell's website.
 * Basically, it all boils down to this: Did your links to long interviews meet the expectations for why it's needed as links? In my opinion (and I've asked a few others), no, they don't. There's no reason we need to link to the long audio interviews of the people; it's just not a reliable source per our standards to meet WP:RS and be used as a source, nor is it necessary for the reader to understand the information. If there's information in the interviews that should be in the article, please, by all means, find reliable sources for it and add it. Otherwise, we aren't a place to just drop links to interviews done by someone of someone. On a side note, you don't need a new ==Section Heading== every time you reply, just use successive numbers of : <-- colons to produce indents :) gwickwire  talk editing 20:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)