User talk:Themfromspace/Archive 3

Links removal over "spam" charges
Dear ThemFromSpace, I answered your notice in my talk page. Best regards, Enzoecarol (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, I never thought Wikipedia is a linkfarm. As I told you, I spread Gariwo knowledge through Wikipedia either creating entries or inviting to read more about the existing ones. From what you write I got the idea I could add Gariwo's biographies in the light of civil courage with the link as a reference. Please see if this example is good enough and feel free to comment upon it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Wadud. Thanks a lot, Enzoecarol (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm glad you're wanting to contribute. I fixed your section up in accordane to our summary style (try not to copy word for word, as that constitutes a copyright violation). I've also formatted the reference. Make sure you adhere to neutral point of view; Wikipedia doesn't present opinions, but verified evidence.  Feel free to ask any questions about the changes I've made.  Them  From  Space  18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:RealitiesOnly
Hi Themfromspace, this returning editor was already blocked a few days ago by another admin. I'm keeping a watch on the article's their interested in as they will certainly be back - Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An so is User:Near Optimally - thanks for catching this. This banned user seems to have endless patience - Peripitus (Talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

AMIB RFAR remedy and RfC
Hi. I noticed that you blanked your draft. Is it correct to interpret that as you taking a "wait and see" approach? I've asked about the most appropriate venue for future filings at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since he isn't currently editing and ArbCom has issued a warning to stop disruptive behaviour, I really don't see the need for a RfC/U at the present moment. If he the starts the disruptive behaviour up again I can always continue working on the draft then.  Do you think another approach should be taken?  Them  From  Space  16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, waiting is reasonable. As I wrote elsewhere, I had already been leaning towards postponing. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CiterSquad
Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice.  Them From  Space  18:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Pruning the farm
Toy_safety: What do you think? I am not always so sure of WP:EL, I think there's a couple of vagueries there. The three I left are OK--do you agree? Later! Drmies (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the one because it didn't seemed to be more about the organization than toy saftey itself. Also, I'm not sure what it adds that couldn't be in the article with citations. If you disagree feel free to put it back.  Them  From  Space  18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hazelwood Southeast Middle School?
Seriously why would you re-direct? Each school in that district deserves a page. You doing that just throw all my research on that school down the drain.You could of at least put your opinion in it's discussion page.As the creator of that page I fill very vexed.You moving it to the district page was very unecessary.Wiki is about creating articles, not getting rid of them.Please respond back when ever you get a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khooks314 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I redirected that article because I felt that it didn't meet our notability criteria, and also there is a bit of a precedent for doing that for middle schools and elementary schools here. Wikipedia isn't strictly about creating articles; it is also about maintaining an encyclopedic database of notable subjects. We aren't an indiscriminate collection of information.  Feel free to undo my redirect, but I might nominate the page for deletion.  This would created a week-long discussion where other members of the community weigh in on the issue and decide whether to keep the article as is, delete it, or perhaps merge it or redirect it. See this page for more information.  Them  From  Space  20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Heart rate monitors
This is about Heart Rate Monitors. You reversed my entry about New generation of heart rate monitors. I thought this is a tremendously exciting new development and I tried to show how it works.

Could you please tell me why you felt that it did not add any value. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.77.203 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see our guidelines on spam since it appears you are trying to promote this. Wikipedia is not the place to promote the next big thing, but rather a place to chronicle information which has already been commented on by reliable sources. Once this is accepted by mainstream scientists or media than it can go in the article.  Them  From  Space  04:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reynolds American
Thanks for taking care of that for me. I understand your confusion about second/third-largest. The citation I provided lists Altria Group and Philip Morris International, which were the same company until the latter was spun off in 2008; PMI does business outside the United States only. In any case, it was not actually changed, so I left it as is. I also replaced the image which had been commented out by a bot when it was on my user page. And that's about it. Thanks again. Piedmont NC (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right.
OK, I’ll concede to you that my edit on the Karl Marx article suggesting (and of course in a tongue-in-cheek way) that Marx was a co-founded of the DemocraticParty, which you reveretd, was unconstructive. I just was tempted, as I don’t like the Dems and wanted to do a little joke. This is not the place, I know, and I will use appropriate channels for my political views in the future, not Wikipedia.

No hard feelings? Thanks, -John Q. Republican (not my real name, of course.) J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.71.120 (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings from me. You are welcome to contribute constructively here (and you are advised to create an account if you wish to do so), but be careful to abide by our policies and guidelines. Remember, Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and joking around with the articles will be taken seriously.  Them  From  Space  04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction
Notability and fiction (shortcut WP:NAF) has been drafted per the general consensus at the recent RFC to which you contributed. You are invited to review the essay and to edit it in an attempt to generate a consensus regarding the issue. Hiding T 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, TFS. I noticed your !vote here and wanted to call your attention to this similar AfD in case you hadn't seen it. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 13:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for the heads up. I'm not going to comment there because it might look like you "canvassed" me to join that discussion, but I hope the result is the same as the one I commented in.  Them  From  Space  17:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

whatiscardcheck.com
I saw that you had removed my link on the [Card Check] page. I have since re-reviewed the guidelines, added an explanation to the discussion page, and added the external link in the correct position with explanation.

The link does not consist of spam and presents a unique view on the topic from a major, non-profit organization.

Mbraynard (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray
It is only your opinion that WP:EL is being 'overturned', other editors believe it is being followed to the letter. That is why it is being discussed. The point of this is to prevent edit warring over the matter. Removing content whilst it is being discussed is not helpful. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And reinserting it is not helpful. WP:EL is very clear with respect to this link.  Them  From  Space  00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you may not be aware of is that the link to murraysworld has been included on the page for the past 2-3 years. It's perfectly reasonable that people should periodically debate whether the link should stay - and it may well be the case that at the end of the debate the decision is to delete the link.  Until then, the link needs to remain on the page as that was the original situation.   Hope this helps... David T Tokyo (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That the link has remained on the article for years isn't an argument for its inclusion, but as it was the status quo I concede that I was too hasty in altering it while an active discussion was underway. Although I strongly feel that the link violates our guidelines, I will naturally yield to a differing consensus if one develops.  Them From  Space  19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks TFS. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome Note
Thanks for the welcome note on my new user page. I am looking forard to becoming an editor, and the tips and tools that you left are cool.Jehosaphatz (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!  Them From  Space  19:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome,too
I will try to follow the rules.Catalographer (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

External links: Time for print
I notice that you removed the two links from Time for print. While it would be easy to remove most other links, those two are specifically mentioned in the cited reference, as the comments beside them noted. I have reverted your change for the time being; if you still think they should be removed despite being directly pertinent to the article and its sources, would you please discuss at Talk:Time for print so we can be clear about what criteria a link should satisfy to merit inclusion? ClickRick (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You got me just as I was signing off. It's near 5AM in my time zone. I'll reply on the article's talk page when I have some free time, probably sometime tomorrow.  Them  From  Space  08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wokai
Themfromspace, thanks for responding to my request for help. I had indeed previously posted the Wokai article for DRV, and editors there stated that it now met minimum notability guidelines and was a prime candidate for DRV. I have worked hard to ensure that the article now meets notability, tone and reference guidelines, but would certainly appreciate any other edits. Would be great if I could add this article back to Wikipedia though - can't seem to do that as it is write-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euwyn (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started a new deletion review, addressing your rewrite of the article. You are welcome to comment at this page.  Them  From  Space  08:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Round Island Light (Michigan)
Dear Themfrompsace, I've modified the article. FWIW, there was lots of good content in the links that you chose to eliminate. Indeed, your comment on the talk page recognized three of the links as having useful information. I would respectfully suggest that it is better for the readers to have the links (particularly if the content in the Wikipedia article is found wanting), as they can then find the info themselves. I put all those links into this article so that editors (like you) might look at them and make a contribution to the piece, based on the information that is in the links. This was true of the Coast Guard (two links, U.S. Coast Guard Michigan Light List and Volume 7), and the Terry Pepper Seeing the Light websites. Frankly, I thought your intervention was (I'm sure unintentionally -- and good intentioned WP: AGF -- Luddite and an example of misbegotten Deletionism. As you can see, I am an Inclusionist by nature.  I also understand your fidelity to "the rules", and I know that we are not supposed to be a mere collection of links. But before you trash the other links I've put into the Michigan lighthouse pages, please think of the readers.  We have a giant task in Michigan dealing with well more than 150 present and past lighthouses (and increasing -- See the Michigan lighthouse template), and there are not all that many contributors.  These links were researched, were potentially useful to editors and to users, and should not be lightly discarded.  I don't want a misunderstanding, but I certainly don't want to have to follow you around and revert your 'sending useful content to the corn field' in scores of lighthouse articles. (This is not a threat. It is a plea for your discretion and understanding.) I should also mention that I appreciated your removing "the flag", as I don't much like them either. Happy editing. Best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * Hi. External links sections should be small and compact and only contain encyclopedic information which can not be included in an article for reasons such as copyright infringement or brevity. This is all written into our guidelines for external links. Just because links are "useful" doesn't mean they contribute to an encyclopedic article. You are welcome to write the information contained within the links into the article, but if the links don't link to something which wouldn't be in the article if it was FA quality, then they don't belong.  I'm not making this stuff up or applying any sort of draconian deltionist authority, I was just cleaning up the article in accordance with WP:EL, a long-established and widely-adhered to guideline.  You are welcome to argue over the merit of specific links, but the general idea that we shouldn't have long lists of links when the information can be written into the article has a wide consensus here. Again, I don't think my intervention was misbegotten at all, and I felt the article was improved greatly by the trimming of the links.  Them  From  Space  09:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion on how the article was 'improved.'  It was improved when I moved the links into the  references, not by your removal of the links (which still exist,  but not as "links".  Because of the magnitude of the number of articles, this is an ongoing process.  I am trying to work up all 150 Michigan articles (some of which not yet created), while working on other states and other areas of concern for me.  There are a small number of contributors and creators for articles on Great Lakes lighthouses, ane even less so for Michigan lighthouses.  I know you are not 'making this stuff up.'  I just wanted to give you a heads up   Those links were put in purposefully and knowingly, and will eventually be resolved into the articles, and we intend to cut the links out in due course.  This is being handled.  Please be patient.  Best to you.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

pointing out the IP editors
Hi, when you see a new account making a notvote at Rfa all you need to do is add a small note. This account was created on DATE. It has made X edits, Y of which are to RfA. SIGN. Arbs will then attach relevant weight to the notvote. Notice that there is no edit-count or time requirement for RfA notVting. An IP editor could have 20,000 good faith contribs and still not be allowed a numbered notVote, while an editor with an account and no edits is allowed a numbered notVote. You may find that accounts are created by gnome IP editors to notvote at RfA purely because they are harassed if they comment as an IP. Finally, a person may notvote for any reason. We hope the arbs don't just count the notvotes, but pay attention to the comments. Some notvotes will be ignored. There is no reason to pay any attention to "daft" notvotes. Kind regards, NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. The main thing I was pointing out was that the IP was spoofing a user name, which isn't right to do.  I have nothing against IPs or new users voicing their opinions in RfA, but they should do so openly and not deceptively.  Them  From  Space  02:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Khokhar
I think you are mistaken, Khokhar is a clan not a person. Khokhar (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed that template. Ideally a "conflict of interest" template should go up in its place, but there's already some other flags on the article which cover the problems caused with a conflict of interest. My suggestion is to work out all the problems on the talk page and then edit according to the plan you set up there.  Them  From  Space  01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip
Thanks for the tip re: Rio Tinto Coal Australia page. I would be happy to post a draft but I wasn't able to follow your instructions (v. sorry!)

Do you mean place the draft in the User: Rio Tinto Coal Australia page?

The current page is very out of date and I'd like to make sure it contains the most up to date information

Rio Tinto Coal Australia (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. You're welcome to edit without a draft if you are very careful to abide by the conflict of interest guildeines and our neutral point of view policy.  If you believe that an edit you make might add any information that is promotional, or remove any information that is encyclopedic, you post a message on the article's talk page requesting that it be made for you or looked over. This is done by placing  in the section where you post, above your post itself.  This will alert editors such as myself who patrol this category and perform conflict of interest-related edits for others.  Them  From  Space  01:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindness is very important, especially to first time users
I was reading your note 'don't sacrifice the truth for politeness,' but it is very, very important to be polite. No doubt you'll remove this post as it brings with it a complaint. You wrote a very sudden, rude 'stop spamming!!!" on my contribution and sent warnings that I'd be banned (how powerful you must feel to have that abilty) if I kept adding. I was a new user that day and the only reason I kept reposting them was because the 'bot' mentioned one link at a time as 'bad' but would remove all of them, so I'd try to add the 'good' ones again. I had read the rules that said links were okay even if youtube, as long as they were helpful and relevant. Anyway, I wouldn't have minded anything being removed at all if it had been done politely. I couldn't believe how rude you were and how you added such a rude message so quickly. I certainly have never spammed in my life. It would've been so easy to be kind! You could have said hi new user, I know you're trying to add links but what's going on? I would've said yes, I'm having a problem. Kindness is very, very important and no business would tolerate people talking to one another in such a way. I couldn't find any way to report rudeness on Wikipedia except to a mediator who hasn't responded, so I guess it's tolerated by everyone. I, as a brand new user was shocked and am trying to find out from someone else how I can remove my account. I don't want to be subject to abuse like this again. (Wildmint (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Hi, I'm sorry if I responded rudely to you. Can you point me to the place where I said "stop spamming!!!" because I cannot find it.  I reverted several of your edits to Warrendale while directing you to our guidelines for external links, yet I never called you a spammer there.  The messages I left on your user page are the standard ones that are left for users who add links against our external links guidelines. They pointed out our relevant policies and guidelines in this area. Looking over my contributions, I do not feel that I've done anything wrong at all and I feel your accusation that I treated you unfairly is ungrounded. You had already recieved a welcome message by the time I warned you, so I had assumed you had read over it. Again, if I didn't look over our previous interaction correctly and I indeed was rude, than I apologize. If you believe all links that are helpful and relevant belong here, than you haven't digested our links guidelines, which are very strict.  See especially the section links normally to be avoided.  Them  From  Space  22:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)



Themfromspace, Wildmint has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. I wanted to send you a smile for your really friendly response. I looked for the line and can't find it either, although it was there initially, the messages are different now and more generic than the ones I read which were full of symbols as well. Perhaps it was someone else. The rules I looked at for posting links were so accepting (although maybe there's another part that is more strict), that I didn't understand the bot and thought maybe it was a virus, when it kept removing everything. Anyway that wasn't a problem for me at all. To be called disruptive, a spammer, get warnings and be told I'd be banned was a terrible, terrible shock for me, a brand new user. I was so upset I couldn't respond for days and still won't ever post anything again, but I really appreciate your kind and level-headed response to my note. Thank-you very, very much. (Wildmint (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC))
 * No problem, although I do encourage you to stay. We are always in need of more editors and although understanding the labyrinth of policies and guidelines is tricky, it is very rewarding to be a part of the community here. The easiest way to get to know the place is just to click through all the blue links on policy and read through them and click on more links and see where that takes you. Every policy and guideline page also has a discussion board where the nuances of applying the policy/guideline is discussed, reading over them wouldn't hurt either.  Them  From  Space  02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for the welcome
Hi there, thanks for the welcome! I was wondering, if you have some time, if you could have a look at the article of Asma Gull Hasan. There appears to be a case of continued vandalism by one user. Correcting grammer and deleting large parts of an article with references, are pressumably two different things? Not sure as I am new at this, so would be great to have the opinion from an experienced user :) Have a good day! Femwar (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He has used deceptive edit summaries (fixing grammar) to hide section blanking. This is not allowed. He should be directed to take his concerns to the article's talk page.  I've issued him a warning for his behaviour.  Them  From  Space  17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately an attempt and invitation to discuss the issue on the articles discussion page, has proved unsuccessful. The user has however removed your warning from their talk page as well as filed a vandalizm complaint against myself. I do not see the "atrocious" grammer flaws neither do I see the removed portion "full of grammatical errors". I don't see how else to address this issue as the user will not engage in a sober discussion. This is just getting rather silly.Femwar (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Users have the right to remove messages on their talk page; it signals that they have read and digested the message. I'll leave him more severe warnings if he continues to blank content.  Them From  Space  07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright then. I still have lots to learn Femwar (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Femwar and Themfromspace, the changes that Femwar is pushing are full of grammatical errors. In addition, the formatting and section organizing are confusing. Lastly, information about Michael Knight is more relevant to Knight than Hasan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.59.196 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to fix grammatical errors in the article and add new material but please don't remove cited material without a good reason. Since two editors are opposing this you should take it to the talk page for discussion.  I see no reason to remove the material as it seems relevant.  Them  From  Space  02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: External links noticeboard
I've made a comment, here. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your considerate revision at AN. :) Durova 306 01:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kerala
Please take a closer look at the sources. Most of them were not reliable enough or blogs. --91.130.91.93 (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just move it to the project space
See: User talk:Themfromspace/External links noticeboard (and respond there if necessary). @harej 04:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this while I was away.  Them From  Space  22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent death
Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to Recent death. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. --Brian McNeil /talk 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Waugoshance Light, Old Mackinac Point Light, White Shoal Light Spectacle Reef Light, St. Helena Island Light, Round Island Light (Michigan), McGulpin Point Light etc.
FYI, most of the external links have been removed on there articles, and they are now references. I'll keep working on the 150+ articles (or articles to be). 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

Pay through the nose
Hi, I just saw this at NPP. While the content is well sourced and it will be helpful to readers; don't you think this type of material would be more appropriate over at Wiktionary?  Them From  Space  03:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - LOL - I know what you are saying. In fact 49.9% agrees with the rational that this is more of a Dictionary term versus a spot here on Wikipedia.  However, the term itself strikes a chord that the implications and use of the term could be expanded on.  If it goes to AFD I understand.  But expect a mild argument from at least one editor :-).  Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 03:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I won't nom it for AfD for the reason you mentioned about expansion. But seriously, if you have the time you might want to conssider giving Wiktionary a helping hand, they're in need of this type of work.  Them  From  Space  03:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NZ_On_Screen proposal
Hi, I'd appreciate your feedback on my proposal at: Talk:NZ_On_Screen. cheers Stuartyeates (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sousa performs Sousa
If you made it work, that's great and I'm an over-timid fuddy-duddy. It's usually considered best practice to upload under a new name, and put that up in the nomination as an edit. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 07:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Pryor solo
I found these:

http://www.archive.org/details/palms1897 and http://www.archive.org/details/ArthurPryorwithSousasBand

Both are pretty degraded, the second less so.

I think the second's probably the easiest. There are some challenges - we'd need to reconstruct a fade out for the second to get around that abrupt cut off, and the hiss is about as loud as the accompaniment, which provides its own difficulties, and limits the amount of hiss that can be removed before we get unacceptable quality losses. We'd need better documentation of the recording, which is doable. Also, I think Pryor's playing a trumpet in that one, which is a bit of a pity, given he's such an innovator in trombone technique.

Still, it's certainly workable, and one of us should probably do it. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, those will be tricky! :/ It's a shame I don't have any of Pryor in my collection of 78s; although I do have some of his band. Of course, the cleaner the source the easier it is to work with; yet the recordings of Pryor himself aren't exactly a dime a dozen so we should be thankful that we found any that are freely available. I'm not going to be at my main computer this weekend so I'll be unable to work with the files for a few days.  Them  From  Space  19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I loaded a cleaned up (perhaps too much so) version of the second song on commons.
 * [[File:Walter B. Rogers with Sousa's Band - The Tale of the Sea Shell (1903).ogg]]
 * Unfortunately, the encyclopedic discography of victor recordings lists the soloist as Walter B. Rogers, so it doesn't get any progress done on having a Pryor recording.  Them From  Space  22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There evidenty were a number of recordings Blue bells of Scotland would be ideal... if we could find it. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 01:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blue Bells of Scotland is up at an online auction block this month. I'll see if I can get my hands on it, but I won't bid out the wazoo.  Them  From  Space  04:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some Pryor 78's. Should I dig them out and report back on numbers and quality? Edison (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be great!  Them From  Space  23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

NZonscreen
Okay. Thanks for thst! I thought the situation was just being left to rot. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured sound
Passing this on for the_ed17, who had a little trouble closing.

Toolfarm
The Toolfarm page has been updated with several references and cited sources. It has been cleaned up and an info box has been added declaring that it is a business. Also, the page isn't orphaned because Red Giant Software links in. Hopefully now it follows the guidelines. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batface89 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, I nominated the article for deletion because it doesn't meet our notability guidelines, specifically the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for corporations. In order to meet these notability guidelines, the subject of the article, Toolfarm, must have recieved significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources.  The significance of company itself must be discussed in order for our articles to discuss the significance of the company.  Press-releases and sources coming directly from the company may be used to verify facts within the article, but they generally aren't used to establish the subject's overall notability. I would suggest trying to find instances where the company was discussed or analyzed by media independant of the company itself, and incorporating them into the article.  Them  From  Space  00:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit in Labh Singh
Respected sir/madam, you have recently participated in the dit war on Labh Singh. Please pay some attention towards the material in question. It is duly referenced text. there are several references in it. ... I just thought to advice you. Please restore it if you find it referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.150.100 (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pay attention to what the other editors are saying here, and please don't edit war against consensus. The topic of the article is Labh Singh, and any information not directly relating to the topic shouldn't be in the article.  Them  From  Space  02:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt try to edit war. If I wanted to edit war then I wouldn't have come over here. I had recently read the references from the article and I am fairly certain that even though some extra work is required to make the text npov but the references do associate with the act which Labh Singh lead. I think you should read them as well. 'have a good night.--135.214.154.100 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

First Church Of Pantheism
Hello Themfromspace,

You've deleted my website (http://www.firstchurchofpantheism.org/) from the wiki page on Pantheism a few times now. I'm a bit confused, I would think that a website of an organisation based on pantheism, promoting pantheism, and explaining pantheism, would be relevant for the page about pantheism.

This organisation is a valid non-profit organisation, registered with the Australian Taxation Office, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I have even supplied the ABN number.

This organisation is significant by wiki standards and is very relevant to the wiki page of pantheism.

If you still disagree that there should be an external link to this site, then what other options do we have? Would it be better to setup a new wiki page for this religion, rather than the external link, with the page entitled "First Church Of Pantheism"?

Please advise, I am quite confused and disappointed that this organisation, which donates 100% of all membership fees to charity, is being rejected from Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Raphael Lataster, CEO of the First Church Of Pantheism

164.53.222.31 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.  Them From  Space  04:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

DOC links
A person from New Zealand Department of Conservation has asked permission to fix broken links to their website. Given the mess around Filmtvfan, I am asking for wider feedback before we allow or deny this request. The request is at User:Conservation ranger. Please comment at User talk:Conservation ranger.- gadfium 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied there.  Them From  Space  23:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

YouTube links
I entirely take your point about YouTube links, by being selective about which ones to add, or more specifically which ones not to add. I feel the ones that I have added are beneficial to the average user of Wikipedia, as in the old adage, a picture paints a thousand words. The Royal Dutch Shell YouTube channel is especially worth knowing about. It is very up-to-date and I hope, reliable.

The main two problems are - 1. Is the YouTube site official or a mock-up version? 2. If it is official, is it just corporate blurb designed to pull the wool over your eyes or blatant propaganda? In this category, the Microsoft YouTube channels may have not always been up-to-scratch, but I think Mr Ballmer is getting better. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits
I see you've recently been removing Robert Christgau reviews from album infoboxes, labeling them as linkspam. What makes you think these reviews are spam? Tim meh  02:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Special:Contributions/189.144.255.28, who has done nothing but add links to Christgau's reviews. When a contributor does nothing but to link to a certain person or website, that is linkspam and this behaviour is harmful as it adds a distortion and potentially a bias to our articles which have (ideally) been edited without any extraneous conflicts of interest.  Them From  Space  02:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. :) Tim  meh  03:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA
Has anyone talked to you about getting sysopped? You've demonstrated you'd be excellent at it. If you're interested, I would be honored to go ahead and nominate you. Heres a preliminary copy, If you accept I'll move it to the apropriate spot... ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very honored that you would do this for me, although I'm afraid I have to decline the nomination at this moment. I'm really not sure what particular administrative tasks I'd be suited for and I don't think I'd be comfortable going before the RfA lynch mob without a. contributing adequately to any featured article, b. doing my best to assure others that I wouldn't use the tools to further my own ideology, c. clearing up my sometimes grammatically blocky style of conversation, and d. working harder to try not to bite newcomers. Each of these I consider to be problem spots which may tank an RfA. If you would still consider it, please check back with me in, say, 3-6 months to see if I have improved in these areas. Maybe I'll throw up an editor review sometime to identify any other weak areas with my editing and get on fixing them as well. Thanks again for the invite, but I just don't feel that I'm ready.  Them  From  Space  19:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems well thought out, appreciate that. My view is, you've got a good handle on areas you wish to work on. As for the tools, here's some light reading, and some humor when administrators engage in acts of extreme stupidity. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

External Link Deletions
I was wondering why you deleted my review attachments on various reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.234.62 (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Links to nonprofessional reviews are discouraged on Wikipedia and the links you added didn't appear to be from a noted critic. Even many reviews by noted critics aren't put linked to, for various reasons because critics may be seen as being opinionated and we try to present information about our subjects from a neutral point of view.  Them  From  Space  02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Job scheduler software
You proposed to delete the list of Job Scheduling software products, because you say wikipedia is not a repository of links. In my opinion that list is very useful for someone who reads the article and wants to find out more about practical examples of software. One thing we could do is to create a new category or page named "List of job scheduling software", where we can transfer the current list (some cleaning will be needed first). Then we can add "List of job scheduling software" under the "see also" section of that article. Simply deleting the list is not a good idea, as it has valuable info. --Jordiferrer (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, we have vastly different viewpoints on the matter, so I've opened up an RfC on the issue on the article's talk page. Feel free to comment here  Them  From  Space  22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Dan Youra
I added some references to Dan Youra. You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/Dan Youra (2nd nomination) -- Eastmain (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tag on Vehicular accident reconstruction?
It would be helpful if you explained what you thought was innapropriate.--Triskele Jim (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I removed the tag. I'm not sure what I was thinking back in February.  You could have just contested it on the page, but thanks for contacting me for clarification.  Them  From  Space  03:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikinvest discussion
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam for further discussion of this website. Flowanda | Talk 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Chilangringo
I thought user:Chilangringo was just updating links (compare and ). Do you know something I don't? Rd232 talk 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And in this case his edit was a very necessary correction. Haven't looked at all of them BTW. Rd232 talk 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Interesting, the edit that caught my attention was |this link insertion and I saw that the rest of his edits had to do with this link as well, but they mostly appear well-founded. I will revert. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!  Them  From  Space  17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I take it you'll update his talk page as well. Rd232 talk 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the same spamming and investigated as well. As far as I can see, in the articles where Chilangringo didn't spam the links himself, it was spammed by or. Spamming aside, I'm concerned that these links are not to articles about the subject, but works by the subject. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They mostly appear to be blog-like entries. Their only saving grace is that they all (from what I can see) are written by notable personalities, which is an exemption from ELNO #11.  I can go either way on the merits of the individual links. Although they appear to have been put here by a spammer, I don't necessarily think we should assume Chilangringo to be related to the other two accounts.  Them  From  Space  17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I blocked User:projectsyndicate now for violation of username policy. Otherwise, the Syndicate links seem useful enough. Rd232 talk 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I interpret ELNO#11 to mean that links to blogs are allowed if the author is a notable and recognized authority on the subject of the article and the external link directs to an blog entry about the subject of the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. But it isn't intended to apply to links from an article about the author. I'm not sure EL covers that issue, beyond explicitly permitting links to "official" websites. May be worth clarifying via WT:EL. Rd232 talk 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. If an biography has a list of works, mention of such syndicated columns should go there, but I'm not sure that it should include a link. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:External_links. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

anarchism and friedrich nietzsche
thank you.--Eduen (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible sig enhancement
To emulate a 1950s scifi movie title either receding or advancing, consider:  T h e m   F r o m    S p a ce    or    T H E M    F R O M     S P A C E   — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And... I hope you won't consider it vandalism... but I've made your name multicoloured at the top of your userpage. If you want to undo that, delete the top line on your userpage's raw code (beginning with "NOTOC"), then at any time you like, demolish User:Themfromspace/Title. Or, if you simply want to tinker with how your username looks (boldface? italics? both?), that's where the code is. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto on this page, with User talk:Themfromspace/Title, though, uhhh, upon consideration I leave off the NOTOC / NOEDITSECTION.... and I'm done meddling. If this has been an unwelcome imposition, then I do profoundly apologize. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You went out of your way to improve my userspace! Thank you! As for the sig, I'm afraid its too big for our signature guidelines, which limit signatures to 255 characters. I enjoy mine for the present moment, although I might update it in the future. Thanks for the code, though. I made a minor tweak to get it to look like my signature.  Them  From  Space  21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Michio Kaku
Hey. A few days ago you removed nearly all of the external links from this article. For the record I agree with you, but another user has challenged us on it and has threatened to readd the links. Would you mind stopping over at the talk page and giving your thoughts? Thanks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV, FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=326424364&oldid=326424150

Sheherezade?
I posted an allusion to Shererezade on October 15th from work (128.147.28.1). I listed an allusion to the story in _Huckleberry Finn_. The work is famous, and the allusion important. Could it be put back? Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing articles from a CfD
Please don't Per WP:CfD: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll reinstate them, although I was only attempting a cleanup to show why the category shouldn't be deleted. I figured they could be removed per WP:BRD, just like any other additions to pages under deletion discussion.  Them From  Space  02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The other C shell
Hi, Themfromspace. In July, you made a change to the C shell article, deleting a link to Hamilton C shell, an independently-developed version of that shell. Others deleted the remainder of any mention. I've requested some discussion on the associated talk page and thought perhaps you might wish to comment. Best regards, Msnicki (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at the article's talk page.  Them From  Space  02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard Isaac Fine
Hi there, Themfromspace: I cleaned up quite a bit the (1) Richard Isaac Fine entry. Please check it up, and if appropriate - please remove the note for fact reference regarding jailing conditions (references added). Thanks for taking the time. Am trying also to upload a pic of Fine.

Started a new stub for (2) Rampart-FIPs.

--InproperinLA (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Not sure what Flagged Revisions are, which appeared as the category, but it appeared as an emotionally loaded issued :). --InproperinLA (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Themfromspace: The Richard Isaac Fine page was completed. But now I notice that someone proposed to delete it altogether. If only for the fact that a number of other people bother to correct my writing, add, delete, etc, it appeared as subject of interest and worthy of inclusion. Furthermore, if you google the name, you would find the level of interest and debate on the subject that became the focal point of demand for judicial reform. Since I am new to this forum, I would be grateful if you took a look at the proposed deletion and told me if you thought it was well justified in your opinion. InproperinLA (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)--InproperinLA (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hints. The article was deleted following a stormy discussion.  The tactics were a bit more underhanded that I ever encountered in scholastic publications.  E.g. I had a reference to a paragraph in the wiki bio of Moreno, a California Supreme Court Justice. I had nothing to do with that bio, I just found it by searching Fine's name.  First the paragraph was deleted from the Moreno bio. Then a critical note appeared that I referred to a non-existing reference, and the paragraph was deleted from the Fine bio. Major facts were deleted, then added by others, based on what appeared to be ideological faultlines.

Regardless, it served a great purpose for me, since it forced me to write it in an organized fashion, and I am submitting it for true peer-reviewed scholarly journal publication now. It would most likely end up in the junction between computers and law. I would sure let you know when I have acceptance.

Thanks for your help. InproperinLA (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One last note: Are you following the unfolding story in Luzerne County? Nasty as it is, they are trying to undo the damage. In Los Angeles, it was the same story, but much larger scale, and the victims were never released to this date... InproperinLA (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear fromspace: Thanks for your help and advice all along. However, it is not worth the trouble dealing with wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia that finds any insignificant shopping mall across the country notable, but deleted one of the most hotly debated issues in recent court conduct, or misconduct, lacking in notability. I am going to get the article published elsewhere, and thanks for the help.

Every major encyclopedic endeavor since the French Encyclopedists of the Age of Enlightenment defined its time and place. There is no doubt that wikipedia defines the US at this time, for better and for worse. InproperinLA (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons)
I have put together probably most of the material in by now... a lot of cleaning still required. I tried to upload a pic, please try to check if I did it by the rules. If so, I guess a person with authority needs to approve its use for it to be usable. As stated, it was the cover of a public record that was the report by the LADP in 2006 on this matter, published online as the "Rampart reconsidered" - Blue Ribbon Review Panel report. After giving it some thought I found the graphics in this picture the only acceptable solution. There are some photographs that are more explicit, but I felt that the abstract image in a way was best in conveying the notion of the unknown, but convergent information on this matter.

Case Management Systems, NEFs and Authentication
My next after that would get into computer systems known as (3) Case Management Systems. Otherwise, I was unsure how to handle the concept of (4) Authentication of Court Orders and Judgments - in re: good faith and credit... It was a a key concept, but failed to be handled under Authentication. I left a note in that discussion page, but it may deserve it own short entry. Not sure if you are into such technicalities. Please let me know which, if any, of the numbered subjects above were up your alley as an editor. For those that were not, I would be grateful if you referred me to another editor, particularly - any editor of the constructive/deletionist/immediatist kind. Thanks again,

InproperinLA (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I took the plunge and created a stub under NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing). Please take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEF_(Notice_of_Electronic_Filing) Simple tech question: how do you make sure all button appear at the to of the editing page?

--InproperinLA (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

One last quick question - how do you get notice by email when someone edited, or added discussion, or added notes on user page? I am sure it is there, and simple, but I cannot find it.--InproperinLA (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing Rampart-FIPs - current discussion

 * Hi, I removed the citation tag. FYI: when you add references to an article you should feel free to remove any citation tags which are invalidated by the references.  You should be bold when editing, don't be afraid of sticking your neck out when you edit, if other editors disagree with your edits they can always revert them and engage you in discussion over them.  I'm not an expert on the California Judicial system, so if you need specific help  with the content details you might want to post at WikiProject California, or WikiProject Law.  Each of these pages has groups of editors interested in helping a broad subject.


 * I also fixed the link to the pic you linked to and added a caption to it, I hope that's what you were looking for when linking to it.  Them From  Space  00:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all helpful advice, and thanks for the link to to pic as well. - I will follow up with the various editing groups you suggested. - I have requested those who own some Richard Fine pics permission to add one to the common media, waiting for response on that. Q1: Did the perspective in Rampart FIP appear to you maintaining a neutral voice? For example, when I read the discussion in Rampart scandal entry, a California policeman (or so it appeared by his username), announced that the scandal was finally over. The Rampart FIPs entry suggested an altogether different view of the matter. These two perspectives are difficult to reconcile. Q2: Do you have any suggestions on what group would be interested in editing a short entry on computer systems used in courts throughout the U.S.? --InproperinLA (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through and copyedited the article and tagged some statments for citations. There were some things I removed because they were either original research or they were not from a neutral point of view.

I reviewed the history, and I appreciate you efforts. I have substantial experience in both writing and editing, albeit not in this area (mostly science), where the style is very different. Regardless, I can tell in no time at all when an editor made an intellectual investment, which no doubt you did, or simply indulged in the mechanics of editing. Even in points where I disagreed with your editing, it made it clear to me what my writing failed to convey to the reader. I nevertheless appreciate brevity, and the flow. I would have left some data in footnotes, but I noticed that you deleted them all. What is the style policy regarding footnotes? It could provide a practical solution, especially in situation like this, where there is need to explain every single contentious fact, and if included in text, would make it difficult reading.
 * In opening statement, I tried to create one sentence that captured the essence, albeit - with no references, since all facts were to be detailed further below.


 * Examples in opening statement:
 * massive - referred to the scope, later detailed 200 investigators, 2 year-long investigation. By all standards, it would be deemed massive investigation.
 * long - referred to the fact, detailed in the Blue Ribbon, that the victims were singled out to long prison terms. We are not talking 30 days or one year sentences here, we are talking 20-30 years... One notable example was a case of framing, where the Blue Ribbon report described the transcript of the hearing, where the female judge reprimanded the framing victim, and stated that she was sentencing him to a long term, since he had expressed no remorse...

At some level, I feel that possibly I have not conveyed at all the evil embedded in this story. I tried to keep a neutral tone. To balance it off, I started by providing the quote from Chemerinsky, a noted constitutional scholar, and dean of a UC Irvine law school, one routinely argues before the U.S. Supreme Court, and who is not given to hyperbole. He stated (2000) that the conduct of the justice system in this case was "heinous". and later - I brought the quote from the Blue Ribbon - about "subcult of criminality" in the justice system. I remember the first and second time I read those reports, and I did not get it, because it was outside the scope of concepts I was willing to accept regarding justice in the U.S. You need to try to either focus on each word in the few short quotes I brought, or read a bit of the Blue Ribbon, or Chemerinsky's paper, or watch a bit of PBS Frontline online "LAPD BLUES". We are trying to condense a uniquely horrific chapter in U.S history, still before us, still never addressed by any of the law enforcement and justice agencies, into one page. The article must somehow convey that fact, through neutral terms. Let me put it differently - Chemerinsky, who was deeply involved in protesting the matter in 2000, now refuses to even talk about it. The way I interpret it is that as a Dean of a law school, it puts him in a dissonance that he cannot reconcile. He either has to concentrate on his current job, or get back full time into protest of what is still going on in LA, but he cannot just get into minor discussion of the matter.


 * Example for proposed use of footnote:
 * "The Latest" - relative to the Blue Ribbon. The Blue Ribbon was the fourth or fifth in a chain of successive official and semi official committees that produced reports on the issue, and tried to fix the original investigation. They all basically came to the same conclusions, and they were all reviewed in good detail in the first few pages of the Blue Ribbon review panel report.  I could add such information in footnotes, but inserting it into the text would make it difficult to read.--InproperinLA (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I bulleted specific issues below.
 * The particular sentence "From the perspective of a decade, review of the published materials, and additional evidence accumulated regrading the justice system in Los Angeles County, may allow better evaluation of the causes underlying the scandal." is rather confusing, I don't know what you're trying to say so I'll leave that to you to fix up.
 * Agreed, intention was to refer back to knowledge gained from the Richard Fine case, and the payments to all judges, and the pardons to all judges... basically, during the original rampart investigation, LAPD was to blame, and the judges had nothing to do with it. The Law school professors I quote (four of them) all objected to that notion already in 2000.  Now we have official data of widespread judicial corruption in Los Angeles.  Why else would you enact a bill providing them pardons? The current situation requires to question the integrity of any of the events of the initial investigation and trials - it was questioned by media reports already in 2000 - judges judging their own corruption.  But now we have much better documentation.  It goes back to the comment by user identified as "cop" on the talk page of Rampart scandal.  He cited a court ruling that awarded the police who were convicted by jury, then had jury convictions reversed by a judge (again - unprecedented).  They later were awarded by court some $20 millions.  He cited that as final proof that there was no police corruption in Rampart scandal.   Most reasonable persons would doubt the integrity of anything coming from that court instead...  It gets very lengthy.


 * I edited out several descriptive terms such as "large scale" because they aren't conveyed through a neutral point of view. If you want to express that something was large scale you should give sourced statistics expressing this.
 * again reference is to 2-year 200 investigators.
 * You should try to avoid the paragaph html tags. On Wikipedia it's standard convention to use two enters to denote a paragraph break.
 * To make the article stronger you should consider adding in some examples of some of the sentences. For example "In the immediate aftermath of the discoveries - intensive efforts were initiated to free the Rampart-FIPs" is currently uncited.  As such it adds no evidence to the article, but if you cite the statement to a reliable source or inclue examples of this statement which are cited to reliable sources it would mean much more.


 * prosecutor's office filed for dozens of writs and numerous lawsuits were filed, U.s. District Court even allowed civil litigation by a victim against the LAPD under RICO law - in fact allowing consideration of the LAPD a corrupt organization...
 * the difficulty in references is that most court records are on pacer, available only by pay. For that reason, I created the archive at http://inproperinla.com/ When I refer to documents there, it is not my writing, but records that are archived there. I tried to have each record time stamped for date of download, and also digitally signed to certify no changes were made.
 * I see you linked to a website which I presume you own or edit. You might want to look over our conflict of interest guidelines which should be used if you are editing material which you are personally related to.  The guidelines basically say that you shouldn't use wikipedia to promote a particular interest which you are related to, especially financially or personally.  The pages you have linked to so far appear to document reliable sources, so they are appropriate and welcome.
 * see explanation above.
 * I removed the section Retrospective evaluation of the investigation and its aftermath as it constituted original research. Wikipedia should just give out what has been documented in reliable sources and shouldn't ever tell a reader what the most likely conclusions from the sources are. I also removed the corresponding references because it wasn't being used to add anything to the article. You should find a more objective way to present the information that you want to convey in these sections. If you want to see the text I deleted, you can check through previous versions of the article's history.
 * I had difficulty finding the references associated with the deleted paragraph. How do you retrieve that?
 * I removed the comparisons with Guantanamo Bay and the Japanese internment. Unless the comparisons have been made in reliable sources than you can't report on it in the article.
 * I beg to differ on this matter. Encyclopedia article should provide perspectives. This was not "original research" - where new data is produced.  This was referring to other encyclopedia entries... That means - comparison of several tertiary sources. To say that you cannot compare tertiary sources unless the comparison was previously made, makes the writing of encyclopedia articles worthless. That is exactly the value of encyclopedias - in providing quick integrated view of a subject. Otherwise - the purpose of the comparisons was to point out that:


 * a) There was one somewhat similar situation, much less abusive, >50 years ago, which later led to official apology and reparations by U.s. gov.
 * b) In the past decade there were 2 or 3 very similar situations, at similar levels of abuse, all three of them still not not terminated.


 * It immediately brings up the issue of what was the reason for such dramatic change in conduct of U.s. gov, which remained unanswered in this article, since it was viewed as exceeding the scope.


 * Overall the biggest issues with the article are original research and point of view. The policy pages on these that I've linked to above should provide more info for dealing with the issues.
 * Again, reference to other encyclopedia articles cannot be considered "Original Research" by any stretch.
 *  Them From  Space  04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) --InproperinLA (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

--InproperinLA (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) --InproperinLA (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, you're welcome to rework any and all of the information that I removed. Don't consider it gone forever or wasted effort. I removed the footnotes because the material which they were noted to was also removed.  If you can find a way to work the notes into the article directly or as footnotes to other passages feel free to do that. Regarding NPOV, it is ok to state that the references have called the investigation "massive", and it is ok to state that the investigation took X amount of years, but it is not ok to call the investigation massive. That's a minor distinction which is crucial to our neutral point of view policy. Making comparisons between different sources and putting the conclusion in the article isn't allowed, per our original research policy. This is a core content policy that should be followed at all times.  I know it sounds silly, and I know print encyclopedias do "original research" all the time, but its a policy we have enacted in order to make NPOV editing easier. In an encyclopedia where anyone can write anything we have to have some sort of guidelines regarding this, to make sure that the material we contain is both factual and neutral. To avoid original research you should cite every claim you make and every comparison you make.  Instead of "one might be apt to compare this with the Japanese internment" you should write "professor X has compared this incident with the Japanese internment" and cite the comparison. I quote the following from the lede of our policy page on original research "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked.  To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."


 * You can retrieve what you previously wrote in the article's history. Read over this page to learn how to use the history.  In the history you can view previous editions of the page, as well as revert to previous additions, grab text from previous additions, and compare two different versions of the page's history. No edits to Wikipedia are ever lost (except exceptional circumstances such as libelous edits), they can always be retrieved through the history of an article.  If you need specific help with this feel free to ask.  Them  From  Space  19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi TFS, Thanks for the clarifications. I agree with the policy. We need to carefully distinguish between novel assessments and novel research. Possibly, I was over-sensitive to the "original research" phrase, which to me meant producing new data, or new knowledge. That was its typical usage in academia. What you in fact pointed out was that I was creating novel assessments. It is the issue of neutrality of tone, not originality of research.

Therefore, tried to restructure the "Perspectives", please take a look. I listed the central facts, but avoided as much as possible judgmental statements. Still need to add some sentences under "current efforts" because I realized that I the Consent Decree and the Overseer not sufficiently discussed.

I also added a brief mention of the recent case of false imprisonments of juveniles in Pennsylvania, which was a counter example, and which you may be familiar with. The contrast in response of the PA courts, compared to the LA courts was striking [= a comparative statement, not original research]. Again, I shied away from exploration of the "murky depths" to use the LAPD language. InproperinLA (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi TFS, in effort to disambiguate "massive" i ran short searches in wikipedia and google. I posted the results in my talk page, §7, not to burden your page with the funnies. Tentative conclusion: Intergenerational gap. Younger people may associate the word primarily with fictional video games and trendy music, mostly as hyperbole. Older people may recognize the word, within particular meanings, as legitimate techno-science term. --InproperinLA (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I looked over the page and it is better on the POV. I removed "xx county" from the section you added, I assumed you meant to research which county this was and never got around to it.  You should still watch the claims you are making about the Japanese internment etc.  I won't remove them since it appears that you are actively looking for material to back them up with, but be warned that other editors may contest the information and without sources they have the right to remove the material.  Them  From  Space  06:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Early modern middle eastern literature
Since I am here, I figure out there is a paper I wrote a couple of years ago by commission for a univ level reference encyclopedia "Dictionary of Literary Biography". They were going to issue a volume on the mid east lit, and I wrote a paper on a particular aspect. I may check out what wikipedia has on the subject, and see how it could fit in. Again, it was not my professional training, but I had published before then in English and French as editor and co-editor volumes of short stories in translation, which won unusual responses - both in the U.S., in the middle east, and in Europe. Do you know any reviewer who is into comparative lit? InproperinLA (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anyone personally, and it's not a specialty of mine. You might want to post at the talk page of WikiProject Literature for specialty assistance.  Them  From  Space  06:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InproperinLA (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I started a stub under Yitzhaq Shami.InproperinLA (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agnes Giebel
Thank you for Agnes Giebel. I certainly consider her one of the greatest Bach singers of her generation but can't answer the "who?" in the article. Spelling suggestions for your user page: Furtwängler and Dostoyevsky. Musical greetings! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks. I'll add the ä to Furtwängler. I prefer Dostoevsky; I think it's the more common variant and I'm not sure why Wikipedia uses the less common Dostoyevsky, but then again I'm no Russian scholar.  Them  From  Space  20:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD methuselah
THANK YOU. i didnt know about this page until now. it really says it all. if only people followed it. i intend to invoke it as a teaching tool whenever possible. (havent weighed in yet on this afd, but i will after reading the aforementioned page).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Unfortunately, many poor quality articles such as that still exist, most dating back to days where we had much lower standards of quality. Good luck with your endeavor.  Them  From  Space  03:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Night of the Demons (2010 film)
Hi! I've been watching that page & lately there seems to be someone posting overly long character descriptions that are not only sloppily done, but are all done in an "in universe" style. Plus they don't put any sources for their information & I've asked that if they've seen the movie (which they'd have to in order to know much of that info), that they post a plot synopsis instead. It's mostly some unregistered user. Anyway... moving on to what I was going to ask, I was wondering- do you think that it should have one of those semi-protected things in order to keep unregistered users from editing the wiki? I was just wondering, since I can't always get onto the page because of school. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * Hi, I'm a little confused. Are you asking if the page should be protected or unprotected?  Curently the page isn't subjected to any form of protection.  If you can't edit while at school, your school may be behind an IP block. Try to edit multiple pages while at school and if you can't edit any than I'd recommend asking for IP block exeption.  I have that as well, because of a similar situation while editing at my library.


 * If you are asking for the page to be protected, I don't see an urgent need for that. Our protection policy states that pages should be protected in events of edit warring and serious vandalism that can't be handled with blocking.  The edits to this page aren't vandalism per se, even if they are not constructive, and the page isn't volatile due to edit warring.  I suggest keeping a close eye on it and removing any excessive listing of in-universe details. If disruptive vandalism ever occurs through multiple IP addresses over a short period of time, then I'd recommend requesting page protection.  Them  From  Space  04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Provoking me
Hey Themfromspace, you should know the canvassing rules, especially leading up to and after Arbcom AMIB, in which:
 * 1) you vigourously supported the admininstrator abuse of AMIB which got AMIB desopyed.
 * 2) the arbcom did not support your canvassing allegations against me (the sections failed).
 * 3) it was brought up in the evidence of that Arbcom that you have some pretty radical views on the deletion of material and have had some NPA issues in the past, which you strongly defended in that Arbcom.

Everything I did is supported by the rules.
 * Articles_for_deletion: Notifying WikiProjects that support the page  "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."
 * Canvassing: "Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis."

Lets just stop this provocation and baiting this time before it starts again. Based on your history of severe persecution and support of administrative abuse, you are not welcome to post on my talk page again. If you continue to provoke me, I will immediately create a subpage in preperation for an RFC regarding your behavior (sound familar?) Ikip (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop the canvassing. You know it's wrong. Just stop. I welcome an RfC against me, as I'm extremely proud of my editing.  Them From  Space  21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that you have actively supported the administrative abuse of a desopyed admin. I know that if you had your way, wikipedia would only have sourced information, everything else would be deleted. I know that you called editors trolls, etc.  You then defended the deletion position and NPA in the arbcom.  Stop baiting me, what are you preparing off wiki this time Them?  If you provoke a next time, there will be no proxy between you. End of discussion. Ikip (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find you one of the most disruptive and antagonizing users on here, and this is further proof. Yes, If I had my way this would be a much more reliable and higher quality encyclopedia. Thanks for the complement.  Them From  Space  21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian music
Please discuss your recent edit to Contemporary Christian music on its talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied. It was a simple case of linkspam.  Them From  Space  14:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page message
Replying to your "ping" on my talk page?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 03:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Problem (Album)
The next time you remove a CSB tag from an article like you did here, can you make sure you add the article to Cut and paste move repair holding pen? Otherwise it's a violation of Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks,  The left orium  19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do!  Them From  Space  04:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Beethoven's relatives

 * Articles for deletion/Johanna van Beethoven
 * Articles for deletion/Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven

Just to let you know that both articles have now been re-listed, with the request to clarify each editor's present position. --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

PlayGen
Hi, please take a look at my comment at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Good work spotting the original request for the articles by the way! Smartse (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talkpage.  Them From  Space  11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome
Thanks for the welcome on my user page :) CMEPforLL (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!  Them From  Space  12:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD of Timeline of United States inventions
Do you disagree with deletion, or are you pre-empting it on the assumption others will? "Too controversial" doesn't seem a sufficient reason to remove it. I'll go to AfD, but I figured if no one was defending the article, I may as well see if anyone would object to the PROD. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 22:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, both. My understanding of prod is that it should be used only for noncontroversial deletion where discussion isn't needed, and any article with over 500 (!) citations needs a bit of discussion before being deleted. I also feel the article has a proper place in the encyclopedia. My standards for lists are a tad bit higher than the general community's, so if I'm objecting to it then I bet a few other editors will as well. I doubt an AfD will be successful, but you're welcome to try.  Them From  Space  22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Rae
Hi, you deleted this article some time ago due to this AfD. The article was recently recreated and from a glance it doesn't appear to have addressed the problems presented in the AfD. Can you look at the deleted version and see if this new page qualifies for a G4 speedy? If not, I'll probably have to send it back to AfD. Thanks,  Them From  Space  03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Kuru has already taken care of this one. Sorry for the late reply; RL is hating on me at the moment. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Hollins
Sorry, I just thought after I corrected a few edits it would be okay to delete them and I was wrong. I am terribly sorry I hope there are no hard feelings. I just feeling so pasionate about wikipedia and especially about DOCTORS!!


 * ) Sorry,

Sally Summers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Summers (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok. Please look over our guidelines for writing about fiction to see what is meant by an "in-universe" depiction of fictional biographies. Adding information about how the characters have been commentated upon outside of the world of their TV show will help. If you can't find this, you might want to consider creating an article titled List of characters in Doctors, and then list a brief in-universe biography of all of the characters that are important to the series there. They probably won't get deleted if you do that, but the individual biographies may be proposed for deletion if they don't appear notable.  Them From  Space  19:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax  04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Richard Isaac Fine
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Richard Isaac Fine. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Richard Isaac Fine. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions
I noticed your user page is tagged "say no to flagged revisions". my gut agrees with you, but i cant articulate my reasons. my gut also tells me this could be really bad for wp. can you point me to the best arguments against this idea? and, to be fair, if you have found any good arguments FOR it, even if they (obviously) dont quite cut it for you.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Waterloo Road Comprehensive
Hi there. I just recieved your message about reopening the redirect to this article and would just like to comment that i actually did not reopen it. Yes i made an edit but i assumed, as i could access it that it had been redirected by another user, certainly not me. Newtree21 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm totally sorry, thanks for pointing that out. My apologies.  Them  From  Space  17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)