User talk:Themfromspace/Archive 4

List of Jim's Pranks
Why? There is no article about Jim's Pranks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurstAsh13 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no article about my house either, or the street I live on. Wikipedia isn't a database of everything that exists. There are limits as to what subjects are suitable for an encyclopedia, which are stated explicitly at WP:NOT and incorporated into other polices and guidelines. I referenced the relevant policies and guidelines at the AfD, you should read over those pages to see the issues that they cover and how to avoid them.  Them From  Space  00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * May I atleast add it on to Jim's wiki, since it has to do with him pretty much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurstAsh13 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should see how the AfD plays out (it is a week long discussion about whether the article should be deleted - for more information read over this page). You're welcome to comment there stating why you wish to keep the article and any suggestions you have for it.  You may also be able to post it on http://theoffice.wikia.com if the article doesn't violate their manual of style or other guidelines. I'm not familiar with that site though so I can't provide any help with that process.  Them  From  Space  00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

re AIV and Soulkiss2008
I have blocked the ip for 55 hours, but I do not see any point in blocking. The autoblock on their account would expire in 24 hours, and they could then make ip edits, and they have not edited since 2008. If you really want to pursue the matter you might take it to WP:SPI, although the age of the named account means there can be no CU. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good reasoning. I'll just keep an eye out for the appearance of the link.  Them From  Space  23:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look at Ignacio Bunye
user "Aronsay" is reverting again??!! - I dont know if this is already vandalism? - I tried to talk to him in the discussion and at his page, but he is ignorant. Regards Plehn (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I find it too frustrating to edit-war with people unwilling to engage in discussion. I reread the article and there really isn't any negative information, just a disregard for citations and our MOS.  I tagged the article for cleanup, but I won't continue to revert back.  Them  From  Space  21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - it is ridicoulus - he also uploaded pictures in the commons, that are not selfmade. Plehn (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

tb
  smithers  - talk   03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasco Jamaica
I added some references to Lasco Jamaica. You may wish to revisit Articles for deletion/Lasco Jamaica. – Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice find. I closed the debate early due to the added sources you found. The dead links didn't show up in any searches; now that I'm aware of them I think the group has significant coverage.  Them  From  Space  05:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Gaga ELs
WP:EL states ''All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.'' None of the Els I added to the Gaga articles are outside this and I see no reason to remove them. They are related to the article, provide information, but cannot be used in the article. Hence they are in the ELs. Also Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked - Everything I added is from the official recording company of the artist, so not a copyright vio. Also as per WP:ELNO, I don't see any of those links added, violating it. So thank you for your concern, but no. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand how consensus operates. If you say one thing, and several editors say another, you do not get your way. I've replied to the thread at ELN. I'd like you to try to keep the centralised there, for now.  Them  From  Space  06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And you donot seem to check before commenting. Again, stating in the politest way possible, next time check before you comment on something. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much...
...for this. It brings a great deal of clarity to a situation that was hitherto lacking it. Steve Smith (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  Them From  Space  08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

responded on my user talk:skakkle
how's yer machine doin now? regards n-dimensional §кakkl€ 16:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye
As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM Wuh Wuz Dat 02:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't leave because of one situation; that's absurd! Look over the thousands of helpful edits that you have made and weigh them against one incident where a few editors think you screwed up.  If a consensus develops that you have handled a particular situation incorrectly, learn from the mistake and move on with things.  Don't get hung up over it. The encyclopedia stands a lot to gain from your continued editing, and I really wish to see you back here soon.  If you are burning out and your experience is more aggravating than rewarding, a short wikibreak may help to clear your mind. My email is also available if you need someone to rant to offwiki.  Them  From  Space  08:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad movement evidence
Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as and if appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Familiarity with policy
I saw this. Have you actually read WP:CANVASS? --John (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, and I'm also familiar with proper practices for advertising RfAs. The behaviour surrounding this one is very inappropriate.  Them  From  Space  21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of the policy would you say it contravened? --John (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I put a response up on the talk page of the RfA. I think that should explain my position. RfA's are very sensitive in nature so any sort of unusual advertising is liable to bias the results. Since they are one of the most participated-in forums here, there is no need to advertise them at all. This is why I take a very loose view of WP:CANVASS when it comes to RfAs, looking at the spirit of the guidelines and seeing what they prevent (gaming the system).  Them  From  Space  17:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that your oppose was not based on policy but on your own idea of what policy should be. --John (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. We can agree to disagree, but you shouldn't hound me like this. Please stop.  Them From  Space  19:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Prod
Hi - re: that prod at Exquisite, how would you feel about a transwiki to the wiktionary definition... either that, or I'm thinking that this should be a G3 because the whole reason the definition was up there was because someone wanted to tell a girl they were purdy... What do you think? 7 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it meets a G3 after you removed the name, but a transwiki would be ok. I don't really know how to perform them myself, though.  Them  From  Space  06:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The syntax for transwiki is pretty easy -  #REDIRECT exquisite , but I'm still going to see if an admin will G3 because that name should really be out out of the history. Thanks for the reply.   7  06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the code.  Them From  Space  07:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
You are probably surprised to see this invitation, but your idea is by far the best one of the entire BLP RFC, (I added your idea to the top of our discussion group) so I would be foolish not to ask for your input. I am asking editors who are leaders to comment first to get this discussion going. Ikip 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the barnstar. What makes your proposed project different from the current RfC? They both look like they are forums for entertaining ideas on how to solve the "BLP problem"? If you want to organize these ideas through a WikiProject, which I think is a good idea, have you considered using the current WikiProject Living People? That could use a bit of revitalization and I believe your proposals fall under its scope.  Them From  Space  05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (refactored invitation) I was being genuine, your idea is wonderful.
 * Why this side page?
 * As someone said on the page in question, this is like during a conference, where editors can step away in a small conference room, and reevaluate where everyone stands, and brain storm. The RFC is too big now. WikiProject Living People is a good idea. feel free to post this on the user page, I would do that myself, but I don't want to offend :).Ikip 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I created a pretty graph based on someone elses idea, which unified a lot of ideas, here what do you think? Do you think the community would want to do it? Ikip 02:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like an awfully big change and the community is very wary of big changes and additional bureaucracy. Again I suggest bringing it up at the RfC or some other prominent location. There other editors can critique it and you can get a rough idea of what sort of consensus will get behind it. I'd also suggest taking the non-BLPs out of the proposal for now. There's enough drama just deciding what to do about living people.


 * I'm still not sure if I'm going to take up your offer to comment in your userspace draft. I'm trying to stay out of this whole BLP shitstorm and lay off the drama.  I advise you, and everyone else as well, to do the same and to stay within the established processes as much as possible.  For example, I see you've recently been blocked for mass-posting. Fighting fire with fire here isn't going to win you any brownie points, especially with arbcom strongly favoring the out-of-process (and, in my opinion, disruptive) deletions. Don't let your emotions get the better of you.  Them  From  Space  04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good advice, I appreciate it. I was hoping to get a few editors critique it before throwing it to the wolves, and for that, I appreciate your comments.
 * I will make it explicitly BLP only.
 * Good advice on behavior too. thanks again have a nice weekend if I dont talk to you before.
 * Wife and I are going to look at a house before work, so I need to crash :/ Ikip 04:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When you said "Create a sort of "holding tank" for all uncited BLP articles" what did you envision? How could I cut away some of this bureaucracy to more closely resemble your proposal? thanks. Ikip  04:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it was sort of thinking-out-loud. A separate project space would probably be needed, with perhaps a Wikiproject or some other coordinated task force devoted to them.  Some other editors mentioned the article incubator, although I think this would detract from its current task, but the concept is the same.  The point is that they would be moved, without redirect, away from the mainspace and catalogued somewhere for spot-checking.  The pagemoves would probably need an adminbot but I think the rest can be done without much change to the current system.   Them  From  Space  10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking, maybe another wikiproject (WP:new page patrol)? (I hate to create a new one just for this)

RE: "The point is that they would be moved, without redirect" exactly, and in the deletion reason, it would state where the article is.

RE: "away from the mainspace and cataloged somewhere for spot-checking." I agree fully, a new category tag would potentially take care of this.

I removed my graph, which was created and based on another editors graph, it distracted from everything and was too complex, but it envisioned all the ideas you give here.

Flatscan did some initial, valuable research on the history of your proposals, so we know the weaknesses of these proposals.

Flonight, Fram, MichaelQSchmidt and DGG have commented, I would really love if you share your ideas there. I was so pleasantly surprised to see your proposal, it gave me hope, and it actually inspired me to want to create this side project to pool ideas and see the feasibility of them. We have different views on Wikipedia, but we both agree in substance to this proposal, which is promising. Ikip 16:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a little what you had in mind: User_talk:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs Thanks :) Ikip 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks about right. The details have to be trimmed up of course, but that would be something for a community discussion. Sorry about the late replys and the lack of participation, I've been rather busy lately.  Them  From  Space  03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reply, I am wondering if much of this can be done without incubation/"projectfication", which so many people don't like, for example: Notifying wikiprojects  Ikip  16:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion cut down even more
Please review this "projectification" proposal, to see if it is feasible. Harsh criticism is very welcome! better now than later. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community. Your opinion is especially vital as someone who has different views than me, but still proposed a kind of userfication idea.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiout
Wuh Wuz Dat 23:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dread the consequences, but I'll think about it.  Them From  Space  00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: It's nice to see you back.  Them From  Space  00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler
Hi, Themfromspace. Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Twitter links
Hi. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Twitter links were against WP:EL. I'll go back and revert the pages I added links to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerz (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation
User: - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing change and helpful reply
Greetings Themfromspace. Just a quick not regarding the recent edit on the List of YouTube personalities page and a thank you for the instruction. Signed, Dr. Strangelove 03:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrangelove (talk • contribs)

Spoiler
Please don't spoil the project by removing links others find useful. If others find them useful, then they probably are, whether you think so or not. Stikko (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read over our external links guidelines as well as our policy that Wikipedia is not a repository for links to see why we don't allow long sections of links to grow in our articles. There are a lot of things that some readers might find useful that go beyond the scope of Wikipedia. If any of the material within the links is of an encyclopedic nature, you are welcome to add that material to the article and cite the link as a reference.  Them  From  Space  22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Employee scheduling software
I don't understand why the link I posted was removed, when I am linking to a free schedule management software application -> When on the exact same page there are links to paid applications.. What have they done differently to merit inclusion, that my link doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.7.210 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, we don't link to specific examples in articles about general subjects, which is why I removed the link you entered. I went ahead and removed the other links as well, thanks for bringing them to my attention. This link was brought to my attention due to a recent paid editing request from elance dot com.  Please note that Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion or advertising, nor do we accept spam.  Them  From  Space  01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand - okay, but wouldn't having a company bio on my company be fine then? There are millions of bio's of companies on wikipedia. An example of one in the same space as my business shiftplanning is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiftboard

I wanted my business to be also on wikipedia, which is why I create the outsource job, as I'm not a writer myself, and don't know all the ins/outs to writing on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.7.210 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Right - so a encyclopedic contribution with the bio of my company, written to follow the guidelines by Wikipedia would be fine then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.7.210 (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, first of all it is nearly impossible to write a neutral article about a company when you are in a conflict of interest, and doing so will likely lead to a promotional-sounding article.


 * That being said, our formal guideline for inclusion is notability. In a nutshell, if your corporation has already been written about in reliable third-party sources (press releases and other info put out by the company doesn't count), then most likely some sort of article may exist on Wikipedia. This article can't be a promotional puff piece, nor should it exist for the purposes of advertising; rather it should be an encyclopedic exploration of the company's significance within the real world.  The example that you point to, Shiftboard, has already been subject to a deletion discussion, and that's even with it being mentioned in the Seattle Times and New York Times! Just at a quick glance, I can't find any articles like that which talk about shiftplanning, so at this time I'm thinking that it probably doesn't pass our notability guidelines.  Them  From  Space  22:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good response. I understand the difference now, and will wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.7.210 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Pbhavesh
Hi. You may be interested in the progress of the discussion you started at User talk:Pbhavesh. — Jeff G. ツ 06:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Image of Penis Article
What do you think about changing opening picture of the Penis article to a better one? Your opinion needed. Thanks! Yestadae (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask my opinion in particular? I don't ever remember editing that article.  I took a look over the pictures and both appear to be applicable to the article, so I don't really have a preference.  Them  From  Space  09:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that disturbed you. I found you in page's talk archive, where you were mention main image in some way. Yestadae (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Help (Sevan Aydinian)
HELP. I'm new to this and couldn't figure out how to start a new post. So I think I'm putting this in the wrong post, but.... I'm wondering why you gave Sevan Aydinian a Conflict of Interest/unbalanced mark? Somebody else posted it and then I made a slight edit and it got that mark. I feel terrible because I feel like it's my fault now. How do I remove this? I went through it and verified all the facts and took out all opinions. Can you email me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I found that article from a paid-editing request on an external site. I didn't flag it for the conflict of interest just because you were editing it but because when an article is created through paid-editing it automatically adds a financial conflict of interest to the matter.  Them  From  Space  19:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, where is the link to ad? And how do i make the article normal? or is it there for the rest of eternity? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, there really aren't any rules for removing the COI tag, basically if an editor feels that the article doesn't look like it was written with a conflict of interest it can be contested, but this shouldn't be the editor that the tag was aimed at. It might not be there for eternity, but it will be there until the article is fixed. The key guidelines here are WP:COI (conflict of interest) and WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) as well as WP:PROMOTION (Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promotional purposes).  Them  From  Space  05:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I just found the link to the editing request. It was hard to find again because it's a two step problem. The link is here and the key is when you google the project creator's screenname you get a YouTube channel advertising thetravelingpoet dot com, which was prominently mentioned in the article.  Them  From  Space  19:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Terrible! I wish I got paid for the research and writing I've done. I probably know just as much about him as the writer. Oh well. So how can I 'clean it up'? Can you give me some guidance? Will that count as point towards me if I clean up my first-article? I figure, why not start with someone I'm passionate about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

HELLOOO??? I need help on what to do since you created this. I've cleaned up the article. There is only verifiable facts in there. Now how do I finish this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.42.124 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

hello..its been MONTHS and you still haven't responded. Why do people like you choose to DESTROY this website and community???

Please remove your unfair symbol off of sevan aydinian's page
 * Look at the article's talkpage: Smartse left some good advice for cleaning it up. I'm not going to just remove the tag without any problems being fixed. It is still applicable as long as the article stays as it is, because there is good evidence that this particular version was written with a conflict of interest.  Them  From  Space  20:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

simply turn on flagged revs in the form that the Germans use it
User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Thought you maybe interested in this. "Whether we should ask the Foundation to simply turn on flagged revs in the form that the Germans use it." Okip  13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, another poll. I'll look this over.  Them  From  Space  05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blook
Where do you propose one should write about a magazine called blook other than the entry 'blook' ? Isn't it inherant that an encyclopedia can have multiple definitions for the same term? BAMPFADesign (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes this is possible. Usually when this happens on Wikipedia we add what's called a disambiguation to the end of the title.  So the general idea of what a blook is goes at Blook and the magazine entitled Blook would go at Blook (magazine).  For example look at Time and Time (magazine). Also before you start writing your article, you should look over our general notability guideline to see if the magazine is notable enough for inclusion.  In a nutshell, if the magazine hasn't recieved significant attention in reliable, third-party sources, it will be very hard to write an objective, verifiable article about it.  Them  From  Space  05:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade
No problem. It's a new template so I'm just trying to gauge people's reactions. I agree that it added very little to Roe v. Wade, but in the slightly different context of Morse v. Frederick I find that it really clarifies the presentation. It worked exceedingly well at Callisto. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 07:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Our article on Roe is FA status so its probably not the best one to experiment with since it has to meet our tight guidelines, such as those prescribing the article's lead. I still personally prefer the older versions of the other articles, but I'll leave it up to the editors there to decide what goes best. You could also see what the consensus is at WikiProject law for incorporating this template.  Them  From  Space  07:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

COI Question
Hi ThemFromSpace. Looks like a few edits have been made to address your COI tag on Leonard_L._Northrup_Jr.. There's an interesting response on the talk page from the author of a related bio. It looks like all references to the author(s) have been removed, and there seem to be references to at least four secondary sources (although poorly formatted).

What do you think? I know you DGAF, but in my opinion the subject seems noteworthy enough (go solar energy!) to warrant inclusion. Any suggestions on how to make the article better?

Wikitaco444 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I still say the article needs a complete rewrite but sure, if you're working on it I don't see why the tag has to be there. You could have removed it yourself with the note that you were improving the article.  Them  From  Space  19:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A mistake?
Mistake? Sole Soul (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for catching that.  Them  From  Space  18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of link question
Hi, I was the person who added the link to a review for the new Mumford and Sons album. I read that you removed it because it was a deadlink and that you thought there was a possibility that it was probably not a professional review. I apologise if the link I originally posted was not working, maybe I copied it wrong or perhaps the page wasn't loading correctly which sometimes happens. However, I want to assure you that the link I posted was to a professional review. Altsounds is an online magazine which has a team of staff that write professional reviews. While it is true that they encourage non staff members to express their opinions on music, the review link I posted here was written by a professional staff member. I understand that AltSounds may not have the following of a magazine like NME for example but it does have thousands of readers and it covers mostly non mainstream music. It is not a blog site for example in which one person is reviewing a particular album. If this was the case, I would completely understand the removal of the link. Mumford and sons are not a pop band so it is natural that some of the professional reviews will be conducted by slightly more eclectic magazines like Altsounds and after all, some of us readers like to read reviews from independent magazines, it allows for a more well rounded opinion. Furthermore, I made sure that there were less than 10 reviews before I posted the link. I just wanted to clarify that I am not a spammer and that I did not try to use wikipedia for promotion but because I believed and still believe the review deserves a place here. I hope now that I've explained it more clearly that you will be willing to rethink its removal. Here is the link again, in case you do decide to repost it: http://hangout.altsounds.com/reviews/115406-mumford-and-sons-sigh-no-more-album.html?highlight=mumford+sons

Many thanks for your time reading through all that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.168.102 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked the link and it is working now. Before when I checked the entire website was down. I still don't think the reviews are "professional" but I brought it up for questioning at the external links noticeboard.  You're welcome to participate in the discussion there as well.  Them  From  Space  22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

David Karoly - SlowTV and linkspam
I'm going taking responsibility for this one at least. It is a very relevant and rather indepth interview of the old-style interview type (ie. focus on the interviewee rather than the interviewer).

I'll look at the others (within the area where i can tell whether it is good or not) - if they are as good as this one - then i suspect that i will reinsert them.

Comments?--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What i'm really asking i guess is that if the site gets blacklisted that you are aware that at least one legit usage should be excepted ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I reverted the links because they were mass-spammed by a user who did nothing but promote the website. If there are any specific exceptions that should remain in the articles by all means go ahead and reinsert them.  Them  From  Space  20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

removal of slowTV links
hi there, I have reverted your removal of the SlowTV links on the pages Germaine Greer and Anna Funder. I understand why you have removed the links as it is clearly linkspamming by one particular editor, but some of these links actually add value to the articles you have removed them from. I had never heard of SlowTV until you removed the links, but looking at the site it seems to hold a really good collection of videos of Australian intellectuals and authors speaking about interesting and relevant topics. They should not be removed from pages just because they are linkspam - you need to look at them to see whether they actually are valuable for the article. Those are my thoughts on the issue. I would be interested in your response. Best wishes. Jenafalt (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As is our policy, we do remove links just because they were added en mass. Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion and mass spam should be reverted on sight. See our spam guideline: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."  This prevents certain websites from being promoted beyond what they would through natural editing. If you want to use the material in the interviews, instead of linking externally, it is better if you would incorporate the material that was said in the interview into the article and cite the interview as a reference.  Them  From  Space  20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Johns River ELs
Hey, I think the Friends of Lake Woodruff is a nonprofit organization, and not necessarily spam. There are ELs to Friends of the Everglades and some conversation organizations on the Everglades page. --Moni3 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That website is irrelevant to the articles that it is being placed on. See WP:ELNO point 13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked."  I would say that those other ELs that you mentioned should be looked into as well.  Are they links to the organisation's home page?  If so they don't belong.  Are they links to pages within the site that add encyclopedic material in a way that we cannot write into our articles?  If so, then they are valid.


 * Also note that spam is not only commercial. One can linkspam the Red Cross in an undue manner just as one can do so with Wal-Mart.  Them From  Space  20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Little Typo
Little Typo on your user page  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  16:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, where's that? I looked over it again but couldn't find it.  That being said, I do admit that I'm terrible at spelling and could have easily missed something. :\  Them  From  Space  20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Your Dream become"  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm worest......  Mlpearc   MESSAGE  20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Selahattin Ülkümen
Hi, I don't really understand what you did with this article, I guess you know that a history cleanup of the article is necessary in order to remove the copyvio, right?--Kimdime (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. I'm rather rusty with copyright violations.  I was going off of a line in Copyright violations which says "If there is no such older [non-copyright] version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch". Does that not apply here?  Them  From  Space  22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I suggest you to do : 1)you save your new version somewhere in your pages 2) I ask an admin to delete the page 3) Once this is done you'll be able to put again your version. Regards.--Kimdime (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't that ruin the attribution history of the article? I didn't write the lead but if I ported it elsewhere and restarted the article it would look like I did.  Them From  Space  23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you add the names of the main editors on the discussion page, then the licence will be respected.--Kimdime (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do that.  Them From  Space  00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied the article to User:Themfromspace/Selahattin_Ülkümen and added the attribution history (excepting the original contributor). I'm still not sure why I can't blank out copyrighted information, such as one reverts copyrighted information when it is added to a preexisting article. I'll move that version over to the mainspace if/when the other article is deleted.  Them From  Space  00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, an admin deleted the history exept from your version and I credited the authors on discussion page, end of the problem. Regards--Kimdime (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger article
I noticed that you'd commented recently on additions to the protected Martin Heidegger article. I'd appreciate your opinion on the following as a replacement for the last sentence of the lead section, and particularly whether you think it might help to resolve the edit-war. I'd like to avoid adding to the mess on the article's talk page.

"However, Heidegger remains controversial due to his political views, and membership of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (abbrev. Nazi Party) from 1933 to 1945."

In my view, the above should render it a moot point whether 'Nazi' and/or 'National Socialist' are then used elsewhere in the text. I don't believe that the edit-war will be resolved by range blocks, bans or by protecting articles. Subsequently, I'd like to find a compromise between the two warring factions that's nonetheless balanced and accurate. I'm familiar with a number of politically and socially controversial philosophers, and avoiding terms such as 'Nazi' for "emotive" reasons, which I think was the original explanation given for its removal, and the ensuing war, is not a balanced or valid way of reporting them. If I can make any progress, I'll then make a suggestion on the article's talk page and hopefully we end this. Thanks! Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PRODed articles
This is to notify you that some articles you PROD2ed have been contested by someone writing into OTRS. They are: In accordance with PROD policy, they have been undeleted. You may wish to nominate them for AFD. Please note that if you reply and want me to see your reply, you will need to leave it on my talk page as I am not watching this page. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Law of Importance
 * Emotional fingerprint
 * i-ology

Removal of lifelong claim for Sevan Aydinian
After weeks of trying to clear it with Rod, the article IS cleared up. However, you'd have to remove the conflict of interest title you placed on the article. There is no evidence of direct connections and over 20 verified links. The 'unbalanced' status has already been cleared. We just need you to remove the Conflict of Interest and the article will be fully clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still many problems with the article, I'll list a few on Talk:Sevan Aydinian. If you can't find sources for information then the article will need to be heavily trimmed. Smartse (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we now discuss this on Talk:Sevan Aydinian rather than on separate talk pages? Smartse (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re CSD-A10 on SIMILARTREATMENTISVALID
You may actually be technically correct, but I removed a PROD on this which was headlined PROPOSED FOR DELETION ONLY APPLIES TO ARTICLES (or something to that effect). When I changed to the CSD-A10 there was no such warning. Given that this essay is an exact duplicate of another essay seems to suggest that CSD-A10 is valid rationale to delete it. Absent a PROD or CSD, I don't think an AfD (which is the only other alternative) is appropriate. My inclination is that it's deletion via CSD-A10 won't break WP. Maybe someone smarter than us will enlighten us otherwise! or Not!--Mike Cline (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. If the CSD isn't accepted a redirect may be a quick fix instead of a week long MfD.  Them  From  Space  23:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello Themfromspace.

You seem like an experienced user, so if you'd like, I'd be happy to nominate you to administrator! Regards, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering me. I'll need to get back to you about this, although I'm currently leaning on declining due to the stress involved with RfA's over controversial candidates (which I would probably be).  Them From  Space  19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorsing prod
I endorsed your prod of Top Ten Spiderman Villains. I wish they had a WP:CSD for this.--mono 05:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD
re: Alexander Fiske-Harrison You might want to look at, for example, the 10,000-word profile of him in The Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.52.15 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Betting Arbitrage
Please explain to me how Sports Arbitrage Guide is not relvent to the article on Betting Arbitrage? It provides details about betting arbitrage well above and beyond that possible in the betting arbitrage article, and does not conflict with any of the rules stated in wikipedia article editing. It is an independant free information resource on precisely the topic that the article is about.

If you look at the article on Arbitrage, you find links to Arbitrage related articles - why not in betting arbitrage? Why is it suddenly SPAM?

The fact is, only ONE person has been removing the link repeatedly, and has never once justified his reason for doing so, other than a vague reference to the guidelines, and not actually explaining what guideline the link crosses.

please explain this to me... John0912 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Physical address is can not be verified
Hey Them, have a look at these contributions; you are involved because, apparently, you are crazy. ;) Drmies (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an odd pattern of editing, to say the least.  Them From  Space  08:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Buy Here Pay Here
Hello Themfromspace I am the original poster of the Buy Here Pay Here page to which you have made edits. I work for an auto dealership that owns a buy here pay here company. This is my first time making a Wikipedia page. Obviously I was a little overzealous with some of the things I posted. We use and especially like autopalonline dot com software, but I don't necessarily need a reference to it on the page. I would like some specific references if possible, from what I have read outside links are discouraged in the article. I would also like to make the article as good as it can be. What would you recommend I do to improve this article? I have read a fair amount about wikipedia posting since I created the page, but I have very little practical wikipedia experience.

Thanks ~Amorrise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amorrise (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Amorrise, welcome to Wikipedia. I assume you've already read through some of our policies and guidelines. The ones I was implicitly referring to when I made the reversions at the Buy Here Pay Here page were our policy on neutral point of view and our external links guidelines, as well as our policy that Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a vehicle for promotion. Because we are an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, we have to be extremely careful when pointing out specific examples of a general concept (such as autopalonline in this article) unless the statements can be verified by disinterested sources.  Also note that even if the website would warrant a mention in the article, we would not link to it directly, but rather we would link to a third-party source as a reference for the fact that the website is key to understanding the phrase. This is why I recently reremoved the link from this article.


 * About building up the article. Quite honestly, the best way to see how to write an article is (for me at least) to go and look at some of our quality content in articles with related subjects and then model the article's structure off of them. Right now the biggest problem with the article is that it lacks references.  See our pages on verification as well as citing sources to see how you can cite the facts within the article.  Note that the references you cite should be reliable sources, which are sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  If you have any other questions about editing, feel free to ask me here.


 * Also, last but not least, you need to cite some evidence within the article that the term itself has recieved significant attention in sources. This is needed to pass our general notability guideline.  Articles are routinely proposed for deletion because they fail this guideline, so it is important to show evidence of notability quickly.  Just add citations to the article from reliable sources that show that the term itself has received some attention, and notability should be established.  Them  From  Space  01:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Link to local business
I am a manager at a local grocery store in Deale, MD. On Monday 4/19/2010 I was doing so research and found that our store, Deale FoodRite, the only full service grocery store in Deale, was not listed in the Deale, MD page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deale,_Maryland. I added an external link to our website under the Organizations section, where several other local businesses and associations were listed. Additionally, since our area of Anne Arundel county Maryland is very rural, I also added an Organization link to the several other neighboring communities that we serve.

Today 4/21/2010 I found the links had been removed. The chat helper told me that you were the user who deleted it. I don't understand why. We are the only full service grocery store in our rural community. We serve most of the households in the area as well as the seasonal boaters who visit during the summer months and dock at local marinas.

I have reviewed the 2 pages you listed at the top of the page regarding spam, and I don't believe that I violated the policy. If simply adding the links to the Deale, MD page and the half dozen neighboring towns does constitute spam then I will gladly only post to the Deale, MD page.

I thank you in advance for your prompt reply. 71.246.83.219 (talk)Deale FoodRite —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Hi, we only try to link externally to resources which deal directly with the subject of the article. For example, in the Deale, Maryland page the links should deal directly with the town and not with any sub-subjects such as grocery stores within the town.  Imagine if we had a link to every grocery store, library, school, public utility, etc. in the town in the article... it would become nothing but a directory of links, which is not our purpose.  An external link to the site would be valid in an article specifically about your store, but I would advise you against personally creating this article as you would be doing so with a conflict of interest (in other words, we discourage subjects from writing about themselves).


 * I have added an external link to the Open Directory Project which is a site whose purpose is that of a directory of external links. You are welcome to try and add your site somewhere within this site (although I don't personally work at this project, so I wouldn't be able to assist). I hope this helps,  Them  From  Space  21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: KaBOOM!
I've responded at the talk page, in order to keep the conversation focused in one place. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your instructions "Please, read the WP:External links guideline. These ext links don't meet the criteria for inclusion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_High_School_Tehran,_Iran&action=history

please view discussion of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iohannes_Animosus#Community_School_removal_of_external_links

You may be interested. Xenicon (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied there.  Them From  Space  19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Help
Can you help me edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theatrical_film_production_companies to follow the same format as the distributors page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Theatrical_Film_Companies? It is a lot of work and I would appreciate your help.
 * Both of the pages appear to be deleted now, so won't be able to help with any formatting.  Them  From  Space  07:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!
I wanted to thank you for deleting all the external waste on the Rory Gallagher article. Noticing your efforts to curtail the zillions of new BLP articles, I was surprised! Happy, delighted! I've never involved myself in any community discussions in these past years-- probably wouldn't know how or where to fit myself in-- but it's driving me crazy that there has been some semblance of "status" attached to editors who start new articles. Never mind adding references or (God forbid) bringing them beyond Stub status! Thank you for assisting in the fight to trim the BLP articles that do not reflect the goal of a reputable encyclopedia on the web! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I've never edited Rory Gallagher, nor do I work hard in the BLP area.  I don't think I've applied any BLP-prods since they started a few months ago.  Are you sure you have the right editor?  Them  From  Space  09:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WiZiQ Article for Deletion
I'll assume good faith: Why doesn't WiZiQ meet the requirements (WP:N and WP:WEB) but Edufire does and Myngle does? Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria for having a web-based article, as you may have picked up from the AfD, is coverage. So if these other articles have significant coverage in reliable sources, then articles on them would be warranted.  If the amount of coverage they have is on the same level of WiZiQ, they may be deleted down the road.


 * There's a popular Wikipedia essay called "Other stuff exists" which has been written to answer your concern: namely, why is this happening to one particular article when there are other articles just like it? The jist of the essay is that most of our cleanup/deletion efforts target individual articles instead of article groups. So the WiZiQ article may be deleted if it doesn't meet the guidelines, no matter how many similiar articles we have.  Them  From  Space  19:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ThemFromSpace, thanks for letting me know about the essay: "Other stuff exists". I haven't had a chance to read that but I have added additional sources to the article, and have made changes to its structure (WiZiQ).


 * The additional sources are the following


 * . Sramana Mitra's blog -- She is a columnist for Forbes as we talked about on the WiZiQ articles for deletion page.
 * . Mashable article      --  Mashable, a high traffic Internet news blog.
 * . SiliconIndia article  -- SilcionIndia is described by LinkedIn as a prominent and reliable website.


 * All of these articles are meeting significant coverage.


 * And what I wrote here is speaking to reliable sources.


 * Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the first counting as a reliable source but not the next two, although the reliability of sources is not always set in stone. The first source is reliable because it was written by an established media personality, the second two are not.  Who is Kristen Nicole and "si Team" and why should an encyclopedia trust what they say?  Them  From  Space  12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I mean, let's say you saw a news program on CBS Evening News. Do you know every reporter who works for CBS? No. However, that reporter didn't just come up with the story out of the blue. The person was assigned it by somebody who worked for the organization, (or the reporter might have come up with individually) anyway, one way or another it had to go through whatever editing or vetting process the organization does (CBS in the example, Mashable in our case), so the question is not who is the reporter the question is who is the organization. I had not heard of Mashable before, but I look at its traffic rank on Alexa, and also the fact that it has a Wikipedia article talking about what it is all about to conclude that it is a significant enough site that it is a reliable source. And for SiliconIndia my conclusion there is coming from the write up on LinkedIn. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that both Mashable and SiliconIndia are like CBS or The Washington Post in that they have editors who are vetting the content (although of course they are smaller than CBS or The Washington Post). Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR
Hi! Thanks for your comment. Crum375 added another possible version (C), after you expressed support for version B when it was the only change mentioned. Version C is essentially the part following the first sentence of versions A and B. Please check the versions again and if you still prefer version B, could you indicate that with Version B in your comment, or indicate any other version that you prefer. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Harringay Racers (speedway)
I agree that if a link is to http://www.speedwayresearcher.org.uk/ then it should be remove but if link is to a specific page relating to the article then it should stay ie http://www.speedwayresearcher.org.uk/harringay.html. I have in the past removed speedwayresearcher from various speedway articles but not removed links to specific pages. Would be interested in your comments. I have no connection with the site. Regards --palmiped |  Talk 11:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now. I took a look at this page earlier and found nothing other than the graphic and some addresses, but now I see there's some good stats linked from the page.  I readded the site and changed the link title to point out the statistics.  Them  From  Space  14:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

IRS e-file
I replied to your views over my removed links @ my talk page. Kindly respond their. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshalthakur (talk • contribs) 06:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tullow edited
Hi,

You edited Tullow's page, a town in Co. Carlow Ireland, removing reference to a not for profit website which offers vital weather information. This station has been reviewed by local and National media and is not for profit in fact it costs the site owner a lot of money to provide the service.

Please don't remove the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.158.121 (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it looks like you're trying to use Wikipedia as a way of promoting your website, since your IP address has added that same link to the same article back over a year ago. Around the same time the link was also added to the Carlow and Carlow Conty articles by a related IP. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotional purposes, and we revert promotional edits on site.  Please don't readd the link.  Them  From  Space  16:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't promotion it's providing information about a not for profit service that doesn't have anything to gain, it's factual information with no benefit to anyone only those who use the site?

Can I restore a removed row Compare++ in Comparison of file comparison tools?
Hello,Themfromspace, Several days ago, I added Compare++ in Comparison of file comparison tools, but I am sorry that it may break some rules so that it is removed by you. Now, I wrote an article about Compare++'s features in page Compare++ and I think it will be useful for readers, especially for those programmers who are seeking a code comparison tool which can detect and report function changes and use structured comparison engine. Any suggestion is appreciated. Thanks, Liuxin4335 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you went ahead and added it back in. That's good.  It wasn't acceptable before since there wasn't an article on it. Now that there is one it's a valid addition to the table.  Them  From  Space  03:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Themfromspace - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Dzubak
Hi. You wrote "rvt paid promo" in the Edit Summary for this edit. Please share any evidence of paid promotion. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll explain further on the article's talk.  Them From  Space  21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 21:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links deletion
Hi themfromspace, I added an external link on the following Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_XM on 03/12/07. The link was to this site http://club-xm.com/forum2/index.php which is a non-profit site for Citroen XM enthusiasts and owners. In the intervening time others have added a couple of more links related to the Citroen XM. In some cases a mod has edited the syntax of the link to correct it. My link survived until 18/04/09 when someone edited it to redirect it to their own site. I don't know why they did that. I did not notice the change until 27/04/10 (its not something I check every day). I added the above link back in to the Wiki page without deleting the other persons link and it was immediately flagged by user TYP932 as a "linkfarm". I am fairly illiterate when it comes to the etiquette and syntax of Wikipedia and did not understand what this meant. I now understand that it is some kind of flag to suggest that there are too many links(I think).

I see, on 03/06/10, you edited the external links section and deleted my link leaving others which had only just been added. I have looked at the pages you suggest for reasons why my link may have been deleted. The only one I can see which applies is the link to a site requiring membership. I would rather not have to use membership but it is the only anti-spam measure I know. Allowing posts without membership is simply an invitation to every spammer on the planet to deface your site. There is no membership fee. It is free. Membership is only required to post. No membership is required to read or search. Due to the spamming problem, membership of this type must represent the greatest number of forum type sites on the web. Club-XM is dedicated to owners and enthusiasts of the car. It has the In this regard I feel it is entirely relevant to the article. In deed there are still two links remaining there today for other owners clubs.

May I ask why you deleted the external link to my site? Could you please explain the legitimacy of one link compared to another for ostensibly the same purpose? Could you also confirm if it would be acceptable to put the link back on? 81.136.210.184 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Norrienoz
 * Hi. I cleaned up the links in accordance with our external links guidelines. I clicked on every link individually and evaluated them against our guidelines. Your link appears to not meet WP:ELNO point 10 which reads that Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists are to be avoided (except in articles specifically about one of those sites).  Also, auto clubs typically aren't linked to from articles about a specific make of car since they do not share the same subject.  The subject of this article is the car itself, not a fansite/forum for the car. It makes no difference whether your link was added recently or years ago, if it fails our external links guidelines it gets removed in the cleanup effort. The reason why your link wasn't removed earlier is because there is currently a backlog of 1900 articles flagged for external links issues, and perhaps thousands that have not yet been. I retained some sites with nonfree media which we cannot host within our article but still directly apply to the subject of the article. For example this page on protoypes from citroenet.org.uk is impossible to integrate into the article, yet the images describe the evolution of the car from a perspective that text is incapable of doing.  Them  From  Space  21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional penguins
Per your suggestion, I've nominated for deletion. I'll have a look over Penguins in popular culture, but I'm not sure that it warrants the same treatment. Thanks. Claritas § 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus there is quite disturbing :\  Them From  Space  11:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A thought on the BLP changes thread, your question...
...is there a way to compromise between the POVs of Hobit and j04n. I think there is, and I think one of the other proposals nailed it, suggesting that the requirement for removing a BLPPROD not be the addition of a reliable source (which, as Hobit notes, is not a bright-line test), but instead the addition of a source which is not user-generated (myspace, facebook, home page of an artist being profiled, etc.). The latter restriction is narrower and, in my opinon, cleaner. Just a thought. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean a source that is independent of the article's subject? That's a pretty good idea, although official websites and the like oftentimes are ok for purposes of verification.  I'll have to think over this some more.  Them  From  Space  19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too, you're right that there's sometimes some value there. I just think "uhh, I"m notable, see, I have a Facebook page" is a little more clear-cut.  After all, I have a Facebook page.   ;)   Anyway, just a thought.  Have a great week!  --j &#9883; e deckertalk 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lodi T.I.B.B. MM
I've nominated it for speedy deletion because there are only two or three lines written in it.If I've done anything wrong, then please let me know. Best$Max Viwe$ (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag you used is for articles that are very short and not descriptive enough to clearly identify the subject. Both of these points have to be met for the tag to be valid. This example clearly identifies itself as a subway station, so the second point isn't met. You might want to try proposing it for deletion through our prod process or starting an articles for deletion debate if there's another reason why you feel it shouldn't be here (for example, it may not meet the notability guidelines).  Them  From  Space  17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability of lists
I was impressed by your comments at Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (3rd nomination). Would you consider adding your views to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The thread you linked to appears to be stale (no comments have been added since February), so I'm not sure how my contribution would be beneficial. The recent conversations at AfDs are better for establishing a working consensus and I have tried voice my opinion at them. If another thread appears on the guideline's talk page in the future I will probably participate, but for now I think it is sufficient to work out the issue through AfDs.  Them From  Space  14:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you might want to come in on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles which is heading towards some of the issues you have addressed in recent AFD's. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: FinanceQ
He is back:



I recommend his account be close and his website be added to the list of blocked websites.

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed all the links that were spammed by FinanceQ and 194.200.167.69 (a likely sockpuppet of the aforementioned account). I issued them final warnings so they can be taken to WP:AIV next time they spam. I also made a report on WikiProject Spam. I'm not going to recommend blacklisting yet since the site appears to be a reliable source and is used as an appropriate reference in several articles. Let me know if the link is spammed in the future.  Them  From  Space  14:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit to DeLand, Florida
I noticed that you deleted a link on the DeLand, Florida article. (No, I didn't add it so my dog is not in this fight.)

I was trying to figure out why you deleted the link. I thought it provided additional information about DeLand without adding a long list of information to the article itself.

I read the External Links article, and didn't see the reason you deleted the link, so could you please explain it to me?

(I watch for changes on the DeLand, Florida article because I live there and want to revert vandalism when it happens. I probably should look for a better life.) --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking about the destination main streets link? That link doesn't really add any encyclopedic information about the town. Remember our purpose is to present encyclopedic information about our subjects; we are neither a directory nor a travel guide.  Also, that link was spammed by an account who did nothing but spam external links to that site.  Linkspam of this nature is prohibited and I usually revert it on site.  Them  From  Space  14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable, especially the spam linkages. I only saw it in isolation, and by itself it seemed innocuous.  But as part of a larger picture ...  --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)