User talk:Xsmasher

Second Coming
In reference to this edit, I would like to mention that encyclopedia articles are not supposed to contain "trivia sections", which include pop culture references and the rest. These lists are seen as unacademic and can be used in certain situations, but not many. Notable instances with multiple reliable sources, as an example, would show that the later reference is notable enough for inclusion. Beyond that, there is very little we can do to allow it in. Does this make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * TRIVIA discusses how to integrate the section to make it more appropriate. Appearances in pop culture/pop culture references are normally included among "trivia" because they seem to be thrown together with little structure. What we need to do is find references for the information. Then, if the information is important (according to the references), it should be included to show why (if the references explain that). Could you try to hunt down these references and remove the ones that lack them? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Indigo Children
I just wanted you to know the reasons of the editing and apparent removal of a reference in the 'Indigo Children' article: 1) The reference was incorrectly attributed. 2) It belonged to another section of the article. Itzcuauhlti (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The original reference was correct, but user Perfectblue97 changed it. 'added better citation' is stated the reason. (Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigo_children&oldid=199791507). There is no reference whatsoever in Tappe's book to indigo auras. Itzcuauhlti (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

BD and DC are NOT "spam"
DreadCentral, Bloody-Disgusting, Comingsoon.net, etc are NOT spam. They are being used as reliable sources. Quit removing reliable sources from articles, and your report here is outrageous. Thank you. — Mike   Allen   07:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see where they are mentioned now in "Reliable Sources" - however I see many places where these links are inserted inappropriately, especially where they are simply re-reporting information from other more trusted sources such as Variety. Many upcoming movie pages are virtual linkfarms for these sites; this doesn't seem like an appropriate use of Wikipedia.Xsmasher (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS consider me chastened - I should not edit in anger. I will be more careful when removing inappropriate links in the future.Xsmasher (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your justification for removing from all articles? Those sites only report horror news in full, when most other sites, such as USA Today, LA Times, etc may not.  If it wasn't for these sites, then there would not be any horror films on Wikipedia since they rely mainly on them for sourcing.  They should not be in the external links however, and when removing them from there you could place them on the talk page for any editor that may want to use them within the article in the future.  Yes, it seem quite odd when I saw someone mass removing references. —  Mike   Allen   07:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove links from all articles; in fact, in some of the edits you reverted I left links to dreadcentral.com that contained interviews and exclusive information. I understand that they may be a good source for some info, but many upcoming movies have links for each cast member in the cast list, sometimes multiple links pointing to different (sometimes nearly unrelated) articles at dreadcentral.com.

I do maintain that someone is intentionally using Wikipedia to drive traffic to dreadcentral; they may be abusing their position as a reliable source to liberally salt articles with spam links. Xsmasher (talk)

For an example of what I'm talking about, please look at the history of Daybreakers, in particular the actions of the user Zombie433 : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daybreakers&limit=500&action=history Xsmasher (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The DC and BD links you are removing are citing information, to be spam they would have to be added at the end of the article next to imdb, BOM and RT. As Wikipedia has nofollow on all its pages it would not help either site to be directed to them from WP. Links confirming cast members for unreleased films are not controversial, nor could they be said to be spam. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Zombie433 sometimes adds BD/DC links in the wrong place, but they are in good faith and relevant to the article. However, I don't see him on that article you listed.  What is your problem with those sites?  —  Mike   Allen   20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My beef is not with those sites, it is with linking indiscriminately to articles on those sites that do not support the content they are supposed to be supporting. Xsmasher (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you check every link to see? — Mike   Allen   23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Roger Corman, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to The Crazies (2010 film), you will be blocked from editing. ''If you do not stop your inappropriate removals, you will be reported for blocking. You are acting in a disruptive manner.'' -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, I really need an explanation what what was inappropriate in this edit. I was explicit as I could be in the edit summary - the references seem completely unrelated to the content they are supposed to be supporting. What am I missing?Xsmasher (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I see what you mean about about how the horror websites have been cited out of context on some articles. You may have been a little too rash with your removals from the onset, though. Try to avoid use of the word "spam" since it is a loaded word, and for the future, run your edits by others. I'd be happy to help review articles where you think the use is excessive. The websites are considered reliable sources, so it may just be that they have been over-proliferated for some reason. If you can get other editors to understand what is going on, you'll have more support in addressing these issues. Erik (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)