User talk:Themfromspace/Archive 2

RfC

Do you have an interest in opening a user conduct RfC on Ikip, per Rootology's closing comment on the AN/I discussion? I think a draft should be written in someone's user space to help refine the relevant scope. I am hesitant to certify, as I was not directly involved with the most recent instance of mass posting, but I will endorse, at least. I have also contacted A Man In Black. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(also posted on AMIB's talk page) I actually thought about doing some such thing, but I don't have the time at the moment to root through his edits (of which there are a lot) in order to find adequate evidence against him. Apart of the canvassing, I believe he displays a general battleground attitude that needs looked at, but it takes quite a bit of evidence in order to properly accuse one of doing this in order to comply with WP:AGF. Perhaps in a few days I'll be more free. I've never really partipated in conduct RfC's before so I don't think I'd be the right one to set up a draft. Themfromspace (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know whenever you're ready, and I'll set up a draft page in my user space. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I'm ready for what? Do you want me to assist in the draft at all or would you just appreciate my comments at the RfC? Themfromspace (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not specifying – I meant, assuming you're still interested, whenever you're ready to collect diff evidence. I would appreciate help with both evidence and drafting, and the RfC needs a second certifier. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to do that. Are you available to email? I just opened up that feature on here and I think it might be best to set this up in a drama-free environment. If you do mail me, send me a confirmation of it here so I know I'm really talking to you. Also note there's a WQA going on regarding him and some people have talked about arbitration. Themfromspace (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, he appears to have left or is leaving as he has begun having User:Ikip and such deleted, disabled email, blanked comments from talk page, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I haven't noticed that. Looks like he's serious about leaving this time. Themfromspace (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, I fixed the template in an MfD you started. Please note that you have to indicate in the template the location of the discussion: [1]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again.Themfromspace (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding this, I think it can be reconstructed in a manner that only includes the citable ones from such sources as this. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Themfromspace. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 archive

In the spirit of "anyone can edit" I've moved your sixty-six pre-2009 sections into an archive sub-page here. If you hate it, please revert! - Pointillist (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, but as you can see I reverted you already. I was planning on archiving when I had 100 topics, which shouldn't be too long now. Themfromspace (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hope you weren't offended. The "feel free" invitation on your user page was just too hard to resist! - Pointillist (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not offended at all, I'm rather flattered that somebody would go out of their way to help me. Thanks. Themfromspace (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TT:COI

This edit seems to have inadvertently deleted some comments? THF (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea what happened. I tried to comment and got caught in an edit conflict. I didn't mean to delete those comments and have restored them. My apologies. Themfromspace (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I figured it was an edit conflict. No worries. THF (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Tveit vandalism

I disagree that it was added in good faith. The same user has been adding this unsubstantiated (and wrong, as the article is about my brother) and libelous remark, apparently trying to defame him. We must be very careful with the pages of living people. JNF Tveit (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If the source he provided was reliable, then it should stay in the article. As the source wasn't reliable, you were totally within your right to remove it per the BLP policy. A statement isn't libel if it's true and/or widely reported on. Themfromspace (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sauce for the goose

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Since you have made three reversions and edits yourself on the same page, I suggest you read the message you sent to me, digest and act upon it. You too will be blocked if you continue your obsessive war against me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.186.107 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All three of us have been reverting you. The tag stays until consensus says otherwise. Themfromspace (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerto clarinet Mozart

I reverted your deletion of the section "use in movies" because it is relevant and the number of movies that used [part of] the concerto is testimony to its importance and the place it has in [popular] culture. brian stormer (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it belonged per WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia articles should be primarily about their subject, and not any tangential derivitives spiraling out of it. Themfromspace (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA states: "A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, which are often grouped into their own section, labeled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc. This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia." The items in the list under the section "use in movies" are all related and refer to movies. As such the list does not constitute a collection of miscellaneous facts. Use in movies is relevant since it demonstrates how the emotional qualities of this music are perceived (quite important I would think). Therefore I tend to disagree with your view. brian stormer (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is about a piece of music, not how it is found in movies. A sentence with an example or two would suffice, but a laundry list of every example known to man is a bit overkill for an encyclopedia article about a clarinet concerto. Themfromspace (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ann Haydon-Jones

The article is only semi-protected, so you should be able to fix it as necessary. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't see that. Thanks, Themfromspace (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Dear Sirs,

Our intention is only to contribute to the enrichment of Lanzarote page with the link to the Lanzarote official website, belonging to the Lanzarote Council (Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Lanzarote www.turismolanzarote.com

Lydia Umpiérrez Lanzarote Tourist Promotion Board —Preceding unsigned comment added by TURISMOLANZAROTE (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Bl00dDrunK47666

I didn't think it was proper to userfy an attack article. Please consider removing the attack. Themfromspace (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted, thanks. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

re:Thanks

Heh, no problem. Good to be appreciated :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Trait class

I'm not so sure this was a promotional edit. (Unfortunately I can't view it since I'm not using Firefox). But it appear to be a real article written by an known expert. decltype (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I slipped there. I didn't mean to tag it as promotional but dead. The link ended up being malformatted, so I have restored it and formatted it. Themfromspace (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you beat me to it. Still can't view it though :) decltype (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Joyce Hatto

Looks like we've got a troll on the Joyce Hatto page. User:Lverqlv keeps deleting material. I suspect this is the same user who anonymously began altering the page a few days ago. I'm keeping a close eye on the page and appreciate any suggestions you can provide.THD3 (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I saw that you reverted him again. Good work. Themfromspace (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And he reverted my edit. I've placed a note on his talk page requesting he take his issue to Hatto's discussion page. Maybe we need to look into locking the article temporarily? I don't know how to do that.THD3 (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He can be blocked for 3RR. Problem solved. Themfromspace (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you mentioned you're adding citations. I'm leaving his User:Lverqlv's latest edit in pending your cites. Do you know the process for getting a disruptive editor blocked? Also, I question whether this would be effective, as he may just create a sockpuppet.THD3 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good citations! Wish I could do more, but I'm at work.THD3 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's at it again, anonymously.THD3 (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looked like User:Lverqlv had stopped, but now he's at it again. I think we need to look into having him blocked.THD3 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Paraphilic Infantilism ELs

Thanks for the interest in the external links in the paraphilic infantilism article. To avoid conflicts of interest, I haven't been editing the external links: A website that I maintain (understanding.infantilism.org) has been on the external links list since before I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2006. This is one reason why the external links were in so much worse shape than the article as a whole.

Would you mind reconsidering understanding.infantilism.org as an external link? I believe it offers a much greater scope and level of detail than the Wikipedia article is intended to, and is a knowledgeable (although generally not tertiary) source.BitterGrey (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that link and while it wasn't ugly spam like the rest of them, it violates WP:NPOV as being overly supportive of the condition. Wikipedia's links should be to neutral, unbiased sites that provide material that cannot be otherwise cited in the article, such as copyrighted images. Themfromspace (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the policy is to have a balanced set of links, not to delete all links that are from one side or another. Would you like to discuss which specific views you think are underrepresented?

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you left the WindelWiki link in place, even though it is a wiki (#12 on the list of links to be avoided) and not in English. BitterGrey (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)(Ref fixed.)BitterGrey (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They shouldn't "nor give undue weight to minority views". My removal of the link was in the spirit of those terms. Remember, wikipedia isn't a platform of advocacy. I just removed the wiki, thanks for posting me about it. Themfromspace (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you believe there is a majority view that is underrepresented, then please be specific about what that view is. Not describing the views and groups that you think are being underrepresented makes it look like you are fighting the current edit war to enforce your own views upon others. Specifically, I hope that you aren't fighting for some so-called "moral majority." Paraphilic Infantilism is a medical condition and those who have it have a right to exist. BitterGrey (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic is also being discussed at...

• Roguebfl's talk page
• Reliable Sources Noticeboard
• The Village Pump
• WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality BitterGrey (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Themfromspace, you might want to take a more careful look at the homosexuality article's external links before citing them as an example again[2]. "The ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives honors the past, celebrates the present, and enriches the future of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We foster acceptance of sexual and gender diversity by supporting education and research about our heritage and experience worldwide. ONE is dedicated to collecting, preserving, documenting, studying, and communicating our history, our challenges, and our aspirations."[3] It looks like a good source for information, but clearly it does have a guiding philosophy. When you are willing to discuss your real concern(s), let me know. BitterGrey (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently seeking unrelated opinions about these links. I already know your bias. ThemFromSpace 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing of Links

Hi Themfromspace, this is Saul OGrady, a professional journalist (of more than 20 years) who's written for most English national newspapers. I've read the rules on spamming etc on external links and I'm not entirely sure why you've removed several external links I've placed. It strikes me that if I write a review for, say, The Guardian newspaper (which I have) -- that reference will remain on Wikipedia, but if I write one for a less established site, such as Commercial Break, then it's removed. Surely, one role of editors such as your good self is to monitor the quality of external links -- i.e., the standard of the writing. As things stand, it seems my authority as a writer is only recognized when I write for established outlets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.88.166 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you've removed all the links pointing to some reviews on refined vices from various whiskey and rum related pages. I was wondering what is your reasoning behind this as I've also noticed you've let other review links stay on the pages?

I look forward to hearing from you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.60.215 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Those links were mass-spammed throughout Wikipedia by single-purpose accounts who didn't place them with the intent of helping the encyclopedia, but only promoting their own site. Wikipedia isn't a tool for personal promotion. Furthermore, the link violates WP:ELNO as it is a link to a site in blog style that isn't written by someone with acknoledged authority on the subject from the wider community. Themfromspace (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then how does the Boys of the Bourbon link on the Evan Williams page differ from the Refined Vices link? This website is also "blog style" and I'm sure the author is no-more acknowledgeable than the author of Refined Vices or the author of any other drinks related website whose links are allowed here. Besides how do you know how acknowledgeable the author really is???

If you remove these links on the basis that it is personal promotion, then you should remove every other link to "personal websites" since they are all the same.

Spam is a very harsh word, I believe the website is very useful to those who wish to find more information about spirits and I'm sure you'll agree if you just take a look. Due to the copyrighted nature of the articles on the website they cannot be included on the actual Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.60.215 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the other links do deserve to go, and I'm working hard to get rid of them. You're more than welcome to help out yourself. If you join Wikipedia, Wikiproject External links would be happy to have you as a member. Themfromspace (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, I may just do so.88.192.60.215 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you have removed all of my links to ChopinMusic.Net. I believe the site provides content that goes beyond the realm of what Wikipeda can offer in terms of detailed study guides, downloads and discussion forums. For that reason I believe the links are not in disagreement with Wikipedia's standards. However if you feel that they are excessive, perhaps you could simply remove some of them, as opposed to all of them. Fyi, links to that site have long existed on Wikipedia, but the site has restructured its contents and so some of the old links (to which you have reverted everything) are in fact dead links. That was part of my reasoning for updating them. Please reply so we can come to an agreement. Thanks.198.103.249.251 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New concern

Hi Themfromspace, this is Saul OGrady, a professional journalist (of more than 20 years) who's written for most English national newspapers. I've read the rules on spamming etc on external links and I'm not entirely sure why you've removed several external links I've placed. It strikes me that if I write a review for, say, The Guardian newspaper (which I have) -- that reference will remain on Wikipedia, but if I write one for a less established site, such as Commercial Break, then it's removed. Surely, one role of editors such as your good self is to monitor the quality of external links -- i.e., the standard of the writing. As things stand, it seems my authority as a writer is only recognized when I write for established outlets...

• Hello, on Wikipedia, the criteria for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth. The more prestigious the source, the more useful it is. We don't make judgements on how correct or incorrect the material is, we only write what has been commented on in the past. The more exclusive the source, like from a major newspaper like the Guardian, the more notable the particular article is likely to be. If there is a choice of taking a major newspaper's link or a minor newspaper's, we'd take the major newspapers. For relevant policies please read over WP:RS, dealing with reliable sources and WP:V, dealing with verification. Also see WP:EL, which deals with external links. Also, can you provide me with some pages which I removed the links so I can look over them again. Since you are an IP user I can't trace your editing history as easy as I could with a registered user. Thank you, Themfromspace (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so promptly Themfromspace. I noticed that in the WP:V section that you referred me to, it says that work “produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications” can be acceptable. Considering that, bar the odd web review, the vast majority of the work I’ve written has indeed been published by “reliable third-party publications”, perhaps you could reconsider some of your deletions? For instance, you deleted a review of an album by The Neil Cowley Trio. As a former jazz editor, I believe I gave a valid and credible perspective of the jazz pianist’s work. --Saul OGrady (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines for external links are a little more stringent than WP:V itself. The reviews you've written don't have any particular reason for Wikipedia to link externally to them as opposed to citing them within the article. The "External links" section is usually reserved for official websites and material that cannot be incorporated into the article for some reason or another (for example a page of copyrighted images that is valuable to the understanding of the article). A proper Wikipedia page should have a "references" section where information from the article is cited. Your news reports are reliable sources and as such they can help cite Wikipedia articles. They would be bolstering the Wikipedia article itself, instead of leading people away from Wikipedia. Look at the other references on the page for an idea of how to reference a statement. If you need any help citing a particular source you can ask me as well. ThemFromSpace 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of link on sshfs article

Hi Themfromspace. This is theodotos. Can you explain me the reasoning of deleting the link I inserted for a free/open sshfs tool for Windows? It could be useful for those that want to have such a tool at no cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.27.32.207 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Geriatrics

I'd like to ask for a favor. I was following the caring.com links around the site and came across Geriatrics which may be the single most egregious link farm in some time. After names of all the medical specialties, editors were adding every linkspam or book sales site they could find as references. That would be a violation in itself. Rather than my more surgical approach, I took the pruning shears to the page really hard. So I would appreciate it if you do a quick look over the edit and let me know if I went overboard frying the links. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 20:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what you did was appropriate. Most of the links were used to reference material (such as redlinks in laundry-lists) which didn't need to be cited anyways. Good work. Themfromspace (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look it over. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 06:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link removed on Park City Wiki

Please state your reasons for removing the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.80.62 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate link removal

Thank you! I answered here, here and here. I hope Ohnoitsjamie will be able to understand... and Mannheim_34 to desist. Is there anything else I can do in your opinion? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 23:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just follow WP:RS to the letter. I wouldn't think that any more problems would arise if you make it well-known that you are properly following the guidelines. ThemFromSpace 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Sir, I strongly protest your accusation. Please quote me where I asked other people to become involved in the article in a manner more than to give me specific advice- indeed, please quote me back where I asked them to do the specific opposite, so I was not accused of just that. I understand your mistake here; it seems many Wikipedia editors don't look for feedback to see if they're made faulty arguments, even when presented evidence to the contrary, but no worries! I understand, sir, you're only operating in good faith. Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post what you did at the AfD and let the community decide whether what you did was appropriate or not. ThemFromSpace 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem, my friend; my intent was specific, since I know that canvassing is frowned upon. The better I can assess my own arguments, or why people are ignoring them and using purposefully faulty information, the better! Please, post this discussion there, too! Ks64q2 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The only discussion about the page goes on at the AfD. I'm done here. ThemFromSpace 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Link removal

Hiya. You've recently removed a lot of links, such as this one, as spam--but they look perfectly relevant to me. The URLs are similar, but not identical, and they were added pretty gradually according to the poster's user contribs. Maybe they really are relevant? Or am I missing something? --Masamage ♫ 21:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since all that poster did was add links to that one site, it is pretty obvious that he's only here to promote that site. I made a log of it on WikiProject Spam and reverted his promotional edits. You're free to reinsert any links that you feel help the article. ThemFromSpace 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your comments about "Promotional Editing" / COI and Linking on my user page

Hi, I left a more detailed response to your question and request on my users talk page about Promotional Editing than I wanted to, but I thought that it seems to be necessary, because the subject itself cannot be covered by 1-2 sentences. I hope that you will take the time to read it (at least the most important stuff). I also hope that it makes sense to you as it does to me. If not, let me know and I will try to rephrase or elaborate on the parts that you might have a problem with. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi... I didn't hear back from you after my detailed comment at my user talk page about a month ago. I would like to hear your thought on them. Btw. I read once more my old blog post that you referred to as being a "borderline disruptive blog post". I still think that it is a good article and still holds true, even after all this time. I started to wonder, if you ever read the full article or not. "Make sure that claims that are made are sourced well using reliable sources; stay true to the facts, all facts, positive or negative without leaving any out, to keep a neutral point of view; don't create/edit articles where you are by definition biased about; rather add comments and suggestions about content changes to the article's talk page; Seek help from other editors, but don't bribe them; come help and contribute!" That's the essence of that post and I cannot find anything disruptive in any of that, do you? You can find the link to the article itself on my talk page, if you'd like to read it once more. I would have added it to this comment, but I know that you feel a bit iffy (not sure, if that is the right word to describe it) about doing that (regardless of the convenience of it). Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed that. I still consider it to be advocating gaming the system as Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advertising. Looking over it again, it looks like there's nothing blatantly wrong that you're describing, but on the whole Wikipedia and SEO just don't mix. People should be on Wikipedia to promote only the encyclopedia, not themselves. Sadly, I don't think there's anything I can do about it except continue to strictly enforce guidelines like WP:EL and WP:SPAM ThemFromSpace 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy

Please check history and revert to include latest info about Roy's list. Each objection is carefully addressed, then the edit gets reverted anyway by two editors working in tandem. Thanks, 65.246.126.130 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is about Aram Hur then I must side with Drmies and RegentsPark. I don't know anything about this article myself but I trust these two editors enough to let their reversion stand. ThemFromSpace 19:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't dispute that; what they keep reverting is this. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I must default to my rationale above that "I don't know anything about this article". If this information were to be in the article, it would have to be properly cited since the article is about a living person. Try talking things over nicely with Drmies and RegentsPark on the article's talk page before reverting them again. Try to form a consensus to change the current state of the article. ThemFromSpace 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Them, came across this by accident--that edit was part of an entire program to add a bunch of original research to the article, by an editor and their IPs. Thanks for your (appropriate) response to the IP. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

About Frankenstein

Thanks Themfromspace for you response to me about spamming, much appreciated. You asked on my page about where I got the once thought lost early film Frankenstein (1910). The answer is the http://www.archive.org/index.php . This is a great site and where I get most of my public domain films, I suggest you check it out. As for Frankenstein I believe this version came from the reel owned by Alois F. Dettlaff, who didn't realize the film was thought lost until the 1970's. Good to see that there are some good people working on Wikipedia's behalf. Peace ☺ ☻ P.S. I'm not 100%, base my life on the fact sure that this film is in public domain but I would base my life on the fact that the original is (anything prior to 1923 is) and I highly doubt that any revisions Mr. Dettlaff did contained copyright, and even if he did it is a law that before 1978 you must show copyright notice or it will expire (which it didn't--only the 1910 notice). I hope this clears things up, if not feel free to take down the link, its cool. MSPaintnerd (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That works for me, perhaps you should make that note on the article's talk page and do the same when you post other links to film footage, as they immediatly scream copyvio! to anybody who isn't used to dealing with old public domain material. ThemFromSpace 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice--I'll do soMSPaintnerd (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD

I have reverted you again on Visionary (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). I've left another message on the article's talk page.--Rockfang (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. ThemFromSpace 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetal farming

Hi there, several alternative redirect targets have now been proposed, could you comment on which you prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Commented. ThemFromSpace 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Links for reviews in Album articles

Hello. As of late I have been working with album articles and added ratings and links to reviews of the corresponding albums from the site Consequence of Sound in the "Professional reviews" box to the right. The music site Consequence of Sound can be found at the url http://consequenceofsound.net/. I accidentally added a few links in which the 10 limit was already reached. I'v learned from that mistake and will be more cautious. However, I did notice your message and was wondering why my work on supplying Wikipedia album articles with links and ratings from the site Consequence of Sound was inappropriate?

I can assure you that I am not personally affiliated with Consequence of Sound other than being a loyal reader of the site. I presume this is not what Wikipedia and its users would consider "being affiliated with"? I can also assure you that my intention is not to promote Consequence of Sound. I think that Wikipedia's album articles benefit from these links and ratings, especially since some of the albums I've submitted Consequence of Sound review links to have had very few or no review links at all. I'm very passionate about music and how Wikipedia can help my fellow music aficionados finding information, further articles and reviews about the music in the articles that exist on Wikipedia. That is why I think Consequence of Sound links should be included in album articles in which the 10 review limit has not yet been reached and that is also why I would like to work on adding these links. I could might as well have been adding links to other reliable review sources such as Pitchfork, The Guardian or Allmusic but I found Consequence of Sound reviews to be gravely underrepresented, and missing Pitchfork, The Guardian and Allmusic reviews, as examples, are a lot harder to find.

Thank you for your time and consideration. --85.231.122.50 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, on Wikipedia, we consider more sources to be reliable than others. See WP:RS for this distinction. Also see our external links guidelines for information about what is proper to link externally. See particulary WP:ELNO #11 which reads: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)". In short, the person reviewing must be really well known for his reviews, or the site itself must be established as dominant in its field. I haven't looked over the other links to reviews, but I suspect some of them might not be appropriate as well. Also, you pattern of editing makes you very suspicious to editors on the lookout for spam. You're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but please also add content to the articles and not just external links to one particular site. ThemFromSpace 21:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

External links discussion

What's to become of the discussion of an external links noticeboard? I'm not familiar at all with Village Pump discussions, but I'd hate to see no action taken, even if the action is to keep things as they are. I don't want to see another noticeboard set up, especially since the External links talk page is already set up like one, but it seems logical to make an EL discussion page consistent with Reliable sources and Spam noticeboards, or at least have a redirect for "WP:ELN" or "External links noticeboard." Flowanda | Talk 23:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno what's to become of it as the topic didn't generate as much discussion as I had hoped. I'd really like to have a place where I can go to get community feedback because so much of my edits revolve around the application of WP:EL. People tell me at WT:EL that its the talk page for the guidelines themselves (which I sort of agree with), and at WP:RS people say that the page is only for links used to source articles. Asking at the relevant Wikiproject is hit or miss as many of them are deserted and some seem rather factional. WT:WPSPAM is used for clear-cut cases of spam and not for borderline entries. It's of my opinion that there's a hole in the noticeboard system when it comes to external links and many times I feel its because editors just don't care about cleaning up the links on Wikipedia. It's a thankless job, to be sure. Hell, the "genre troll" noticeboard got much more comments than the EL noticeboard and genre trolling isn't nearly as prevelant of an issue as EL problems. So it goes... ThemFromSpace 23:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Spam

Greetings. You seem to be an experienced spam-fighter and I wanted to get an opinion on some sketchy links being placed in renewable-energy related articles. Nuclear Power, Renewable Energy, and Wind Power all have a link, inserted by a previously spam-warned user, Engineman. I removed this link from the Fossil-fuel power plant article, but the link seems quasi-relevant. What do you think? Thanks for all of the good work. Farmercarlos (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating the work I do around here. Looking over his contribution history, there's other articles that he has inserted the link to besides the ones you mentioned. This seems suspicous, especially considering that he has created the Wikipedia article about the website he links to. Perhaps this should be posted at over at WT:WPSPAM for others to look at, but if I were to make a judgement call I'd say that he should stop the links. His continued behaviour isn't appropriate and he has already been warned by others to stop. ThemFromSpace 00:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Polite note

You said, "Please stop badgering everyone who !votes to "delete" at this AfD, it's considered bad Wikiquette. The !voters should have already looked over the discussion and noted your points. Shoving your opinion down their throats after they already !voted isn't going to change their minds, only infuriate them." I notice that you seem to be doing that to everyone who is arguing to keep in the various "in popular culture" AfDs. Per your own advice, I encourage you to refrain from doing so as you can see from my experience how eventually someone takes issue. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

lolwut? I might respond to one or two people tops in each AfD, not 40+ times. ThemFromSpace 04:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but for the record, I made 36 edits to that one AfD and I was in fact second, not first, in most edits. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: FuckedCompany

That link was there for months and is relevant to the page. There is someone who has beef with that site who keeps trying to remove it.

This isn't about the previous drama, as I'm uninvolved in that, but the link itself. It doesn't comply with our guidelines for external links as it's a link to an internet forum and the article isn't about that particular forum. See WP:ELNO #10 and #13, which is why I've removed it. ThemFromSpace 04:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, the site is very relevant and should belong in the external links section. Per posted guidelines:

If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article. External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article. The heading should be "External links" (plural) even if there is only a single link listed. If several external links are listed and the subject of the article is a living person, organization, web service, or otherwise has an official website, it is normal practice to place the link to that site at the top of the list (if it is not already in an appropriate infobox).

Now, look at http://www.f2bbs.com and http://web.archive.org/web/20031111084805/bbs.fuckedcompany.com/index.cgi?okay=topic_list&board_id=1 which is an archived copy of the original defunct site that the article is about.

Again, this link has been there for months until 70.91.104.249 (who has a history of previous vandalism) decided he was against it.

Again, "Links normally to be avoided": "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[1] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." We almost never link to forums here, except if the article is about a particular forum. The fact that the link existed for so long isn't an argument that it should stay as lots of stuff is on here that should go by our guidelines. ThemFromSpace 06:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The original site WAS a forum! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.84.97 (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But if it's not the same forum then its an unrelated website. According to the Wikipedia article, the forum closed some time ago. The link that claims to be to the forum is dead. This seems to be an unrelated website, which isn't appropriate. ThemFromSpace 06:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that people who are looking to see what happened to the FC site should not have a source of information about the location of the rest of it's former user base? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.84.97 (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's not the same website, the link shouldn't go in the External links section. On the other hand, a mention of this is warranted in the main body of the article, provided that the claim that a large part of the fanbase moved there is properly sourced in reliable, third-party sources. If that connection is made, then I can see the link belonging, but if it isn't attributable to reliable sources, then the second site shouldn't be linked to. ThemFromSpace 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Storm (Marvel Comics)

I did not edit the character Storm from Marvel Comics... I think mine and someone else's IP address may have been confused. 90.204.205.91 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If not, than that's perfectly ok. It's well known on Wikipedia that different people may be using the same IP address The message wasn't aimed at you but the user who used your IP back in February to edit that article. ThemFromSpace 19:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

college cook show

I accidently erased your AfD, but I put up a speedy.. it is blatant WP:G11 / WP:A7 R3ap3R.inc (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I readded the AfD tag so if the article gets speedied the admin will close the AfD and if the article doesn't get speedied, the AfD will continue on. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a bit late as I've just posted there. I have eyes everywhere you know ;) ThemFromSpace 18:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree?

Hey, for what it's worth, I am happy that we at least agree somewhere. It is always encouraging to see that even if any of us may disagree in many instances, at least sooner or later there are occasionally times for agreement as well.  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I felt the same way. ThemFromSpace 02:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

contacting everyone, as policy dictates is fair

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I commented there already, but thanks for notifying both sides of the debate. I already took the liberty of posting this at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, which is a place you can go next time you want to increase participation in a merge discussion. ThemFromSpace 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question?

I am trying really hard to address your concerns regarding Rebecca Hendrix in that the article while predominately plot summary, which I suppose could be trimmed, is no longer solely plot summary. I have begun working on sections on Development and Reception using the multiple hits from Google News. The one hang up is that main sources require payperview and/or subscriptions and I am trying to figure out what to do there. By any chance might you reconsider at least allowing for a redirect with edit history intact so that when I am able to access these sources I can give it a try over? Again, as you can see, I am making a serious effort to at least show that development and reception sections are possible and anyone who knows me well enough knows that I do return to articles I believe in, sometimes even months later, but eventually. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was away the last day and it appears that the article has since been merged/redirected into the parent series with its history intact. ThemFromSpace 18:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed to work out okay in the end; I would have preferred it be kept, but no reason not to compromise on occasion. Hope you had a nice day away! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• You too! ThemFromSpace 06:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cassidy (song)

Greetings, Themfromspace. I've reverted your edits that changed Cassidy (song) from an article to a redirect, and explained why at Talk:Cassidy (song)#Merger proposal. Feel free to join in the discussion there. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've replied there. ThemFromSpace 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been almost three weeks, and no one else has said anything, so I've merged the articles. Thanks for your participation in the process, I appreciate it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for merging. ThemFromSpace 03:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Veľkonočný pondelok (Easter monday) or Šibačka/Polievačka

Hi, when you voted for Veľkonočný pondelok (Easter monday) or Šibačka/Polievačka, you actually put your vote in the article, rather then the AfD, I've moved it about so should be okay :), just letting you know. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Whoops. Thanks for fixing that for me, don't know what happened there. ThemFromSpace 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanceburg

Your threat of taking away editing privilages was unprofessional and uncalled for,You came in guns a blazing after the situation was already resolved!!!!!!! Immature young adults have no bussiness being in a Admin role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanceburg (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither me nor Seicer are admins. Please look over our guidelines for external links to see what does and does not belong in an "External links" section. I gave you the appropriate "third warning" message since you were already warned twice by Seicer for your link additions. If you continue doing nothing but what you have been doing, you will be blocked from editing per our blocking policy ThemFromSpace 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

siecer warned me once and he showed me what i was doing wrong i agreed to stop it was over you jumped in when there was no need of it. you had no bussiness steping in when we had it settled. siecer has offered to get a non involved admin to look at it if i wish.if i get blocked i won't quit until you are blocked with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanceburg (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! I can't believe the crap that builds up on some articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

I read it and took head of the last sentence! I've just given it a bit of a face lift, though I'm not sure wtf happened with the grey box in the middle- sorry about that! In case you were wondering, I came across you at List of India Hospitals, Ambulance, Blood Banks, Pharmacy and all other Medical Amenities's AfD page. I've been monitoring it, just to see what the consensus is and it's not looking good for that article. Interesting, though, that the author hasn't weighed into the debate. Kind regards and hope you like the new look! HJ Mitchell (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I changed it around some more, fixing some of the wording and removing the box in the center. ThemFromSpace 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not quite sure what happened with the box thing! I'm glad you like it! HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

~Link to Mini treasures wiki was removed

I noticed you had removed the external link to Mini treasures wiki and I'd like to know the reason for that. Is it because the site is so new? The purpose of that wiki is to collect the dollhouse and miniature links into one place, I've done it already for Finnish dollhouse links and now I try to do the same with the dollhouse links from all over the world. I checked the page you referred and did not understand why it was removed, please explain. Jjanhone (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link per WP:ELNO #12 which states that "#Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." are to be avoided. Any relevant information in that article can and should be properly implemented within the Wikipedia article and cited. Note that the wiki isn't considered a reliable source so other sources would have to be used for the referencing. ThemFromSpace 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I then need to get the substanial number of editors and a little history before adding it back :). Jjanhone (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Too Many External Links

Please let me know if the edits I made conform to Wikipedia standards ... I added some text and put a few of the links as references - Rehs Galleries, Inc.

Thanks

Also do the other notices at the top of the page get removed at some point? 68.195.57.223 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the {{externallinks}} tag, it will be removed when an editor goes through that article and makes sure the links are in line with our guidelines for external links. It might be a matter of days, or months, until that happens. The external links backlog usually isn't too severe. ThemFromSpace 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the prompt reply -- you may enjoy this article -- Bernie Madoff and Pink Floyd (5th article) - http://www.rehs.com/nl_archives_view.php?key=107 68.195.57.223 (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on this article that I nominated for AFD. I'm just glad I'm not crazy. I'll readily admit that I'm new to this form of deletion (lots of prod and CSD), and I was extremely surprised at how the other "keep" voters jumped on the bandwagon once the AFD discussion was added to the a couple of malware project spaces. I can certaily understand why it is done (because those project people should be subject-matter experts) but it almost seemed like a COI, where they just wanted to keep it because it was an article in their project... even though what they should really be concerned with is making sure the articles in their space are worthy.

Anyway, it looks like it is leaning toward keep (which is fine, I don't have to win them all) but I wanted to say thanks for your input.     JCutter  ^{{ talk to me }}     07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. The first contributer there has a contentious editing history, he pretty much says that same spiel at all AfDs he participates in. I'm sorry a few others fell for his strawman argument and didn't address the prevailing concern of notability. ThemFromSpace 07:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucas Valieri

Please don't delete content, as you did at Lucas Valieri. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I redirected the article to the parent list. There was no cited information that was lost and there were no sources evidencing notability, nor was there any content other than plot summary. ThemFromSpace 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't redirect it properly, a mistake I presume ;P. (Sorry 'bout barging in, still got this page on my watchlist :P) - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops :\ Thanks for pointing that out. ThemFromSpace 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

TUG

Why are you censoring TUG? Best resource on the net for this sort of thing. Is this some kind og George Bush anti free speech conspriacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.116.3 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please look over WP:ELNO to see certain kinds of links that shouldn't be in articles. I'm specifically referring to point 10: # 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. Also please try not to insert links which you are personally affiliated with, to comply with our conflict of interest and neutral point of view policies. ThemFromSpace 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun

Hi. There seems to be anti-Pashtun policy here on wikipedia as most articles about Pashtuns are vandalized. Now I want to write Pashto names of areas where Pashtuns are majority but some users (71.107.11.87 and user:Izady) are falsely changing them to Persian and sometimes they even delete references. (see Special:Contributions/71.107.11.87) -.deShinDand (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that guy is a long-term vandal here. Someday I have to gather up all of his sockpuppet accounts and report them as one. For now you can issue him warnings and if he is deleting references, make a posting on the reliable sources noticeboard about it. ThemFromSpace 05:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay and thanks! -.deShinDand (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is also a problem with Pashto names. Names like Ghazni, Kabul, Mazar-e Sharif, Herat, Gardez etc are all Persian names and well-recorded, long before "Pashto had reached the area" (quote from Encyclopaedia Iranica). Tajik (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to this subject any more. My talk page is for direct communication with me; it is not a place for ethnic content disputes to spill over from other pages. Requests and notifications are welcome; disputes like this are not. Take it to the relevant Wikiproject or dispute resolution. ThemFromSpace 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

comment from Vinayrajogopal

Hello Themfromspace, I just returned from an holiday in CA. I enjoyed my stay at Dickie Walker Charters. I stronggly believe that the world needs to know about this excelent people and a excellent place and I strongly believe that every die hard fan of wikipedia should not miss this information. This is my first addition to the wiki. I will truly appreciate if you can value my thoughts. Thanks, Vinay Rajagopal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayrajagopal (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please understand that Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise something, or get word out of something. See WP:SPAM for this distinction. If that place is notable per our standards (meaning it has recieved significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources) than you may write an article about it. That information shouldn't go in another article, as that constitutes undue weight. ThemFromSpace 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We Are North Melbourne AfD

There were more or less an equal amount of reasons for keeping and deleting, and the reasons to do both were equally valid. 'No consensus' is the best description of the discussion, in my opinion. One (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I might take this to DRV as I think the single purpose accounts got weighed in a bit too heavily and that their arguments weren't based off of correct readings of policy and guidelines, but I'm too busy at the moment make that decision now. I'll let you know if/when I do. ThemFromSpace 00:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that seems fair. It's certainly your right to take it to DRV if you so wish. One (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD Re-opened

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My popular culture articles

I don't create popular culture articles, I migrate them. The content in all of "my" articles that you've noticed/nominated for deletion came from main articles that were being worsened by their presence. I don't think that large blocks of PC material should necessarily be removed completely, but it's a negative impact on the main article, so I move the lists elsewhere. Once they've been moved, I have little concern over what happens to them, as long as that kind of material doesn't return to the main article. Don't feel the need to notify me every time you see one you don't like. Mintrick (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like the articles; I was notifying you that they didn't contain any sources. From now on when you create articles please source them with reliable sources or they may be deleted. Even if you hadn't created the material, you should add a cleanup tag to an article you create without any sources so that it may be improved. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Shocker Toys

Hello. I was wondering why you reverted my edit to Shocker Toys. You called it "promotional editing," but there wasn't anything about it that promoted the company one way or another. With the exception of one sentence (The company operates only on the Internet, and by 2002 the company has two full time employees: CEO Beckett and Marketing Director Dana Newsom.), everything I removed was outdated, as the "Indie Spotlight" line has now been released. I didn't add anything to the article either, so I fail to see how that could constitute promotion. I'm going to remove the stuff again, but this time I'll leave off the sentence I mentioned to be safe. Thanks. Nothingplace (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

finding AFD?

How'd you find the AFD for this? Through the admin logs? tedder (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you prodded it from my watchlist. I went to check out the reason and saw that the page was new and wondered how it got to my watchlist. Looking at the page's log gave me the answer. ThemFromSpace 04:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina - a suitable case for deletion?

Hi .. Can you clarify your grounds for removing an external link from the Agrippina_(opera) article? I've read the external links guidelines and am not sure what grounds you thought were relevent. I believe your edit has sensibly reduced the value of the article -- if a reader is interested in that opera, then they should welcome the chance to experience it for themselves.

The link was highly relevent, and the site is non-commercial, freely available to the general public, uses no complex web technology, and so on. Please let me know because I think the site linked is a valuable one, and one which could and should be linked from many more places within Wikipedia.

Thanks for any light that ypu can shed Scarabocchio (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Since the only edits you have made to Wikipedia are about that site, I figured the link failed WP:ELNO #4; Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming. Also the contents of the link itself change over time, which violates the spirit of WP:ELNO # 10 and 11. Lastly, the link isn't directly about the opera per se, but about a schedule of performances of it. This would go against WP:ELNO # 13. Remember that external links should mostly provide encyclopedic content that for some reason (copyrights, brevity, etc) can not be integrated into the main article. If you want to bring this up on the article's talk page for discussion there go ahead, but please drop me a note when you do so I can participate. ThemFromSpace 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I revisited this page only because I got bored waiting for you to send me a message on my talk page (link provided in my signature) and because I was disinclined to update any more pages in case you decided to remove those too. Please check my contributions list, and reread my message carefully -- the content of the linked page is frequently updated, but this is a positive thing, not a reason for ignoring it. The subject matter of the article is not a sterile, static thing, but living and relevent. "If a reader is interested in that opera, then they should welcome the chance to experience it for themselves", as I wrote. As a newbie, it may be that I started by editing a page and then moving to other related pages, but I was not expecting that I would be penalised for this. Please reinstate the link, so I can feel comfortable continuing working on this project -- there is much to do, and I'd like to help.

Scarabocchio (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the article's talk page about the link. You're welcome to contribute at this page. ThemFromSpace 00:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion of this issue at the Opera Project talk page since this applies to many articles. Please feel free to contribute. Voceditenore (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar, always nice to be appreciated. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Some info

Should you decide to go ahead and do what you had suggested a week and a half ago, you'll find this, this, this, and this useful. This should also be enlightening. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The first, third, and fourth links are admin-only so I can't see them. Without being able to see the page itself, the MfD is a puzzle. Could you shed some light on why this is relevant? The AN links will probably come in handy. ThemFromSpace 11:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it, I wrote a follow-up note at User talk:Flatscan#Draft. If you wish to respond, feel free to do so wherever you like best. Flatscan (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ikip and notability

Ikip has notified me via email of some real-world personal issues that he has to attend to (I obviously cannot divulge the details) and as such has been self-request being blocked for 72 (seventy-two) days, which an admin has done. Also, A Man In Black may have also left the project as his last edit was this. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that already, but thanks for the heads up. ThemFromSpace 17:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know if you have seen any of these RfCs about users before (I am reluctant to cite any as examples as the editors in question might not appreciate that), but I have commented in a couple and in both cases that I am thinking of, nothing really came of them in either scenario, but what we did have was further digging in by the opposing viewpoints and time spent doing that rather than improving articles, i.e. they wound up making matters worse. A lot of ANI threads do that as well, I find. Really, I am increasingly finding this site as being one of discussion based arguments more so than article-building and I guess it is making me all the more disillusioned. Part of the reason why I defend articles so much is because I don't get what value there is in having hordes of Afd discussions available for public viewing rather than articles that are at least relevant to someone. I suppose AfDs may be interesting to psychologists and sociologists, but for original research. Hoaxes, copy vios, and libel should be relatively non-controversial, but once we get into whether or not a subject is notable, how is having an AfD discussion viewable better than an article? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course the RfC in itself won't solve anything, they never do. But we're at the point where every ANI thread ends in "take it to RfC", which is the crucial step between ANI and ArbCom. If this would go to ArbCom they would most assuredly ask to see an RfC as evidence that the dispute resolution process had been undertaken. Ikip has been a troublemaker for months (and I'm not saying he's the only cause of drama, I feel AMIB's current block to be just), if I compiled this the last time he took a wikibreak things might have cleared up by now. Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away as you can clearly see.

As for notability, you and me have different philosophies there. I believe it is a priviledge for a subject to have a place in this encyclopedia. When one says "I read it in Wikipedia" that should mean something to the subject beyond the fact that its existance is verifiable. If we would allow everything verifiable we stop being a discriminate encyclopedia and start becoming a mere database. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather prefer to work on an encyclopedia than a database. My vet bill can verifiy that my cat has fleas, but does that really belong in an encyclopedia? ThemFromSpace 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, though, why bother? Imagine what more we'd accomplish if we focused on referencing articles. Just looking at your draft: 1) he is going against policy with "ilikeit" statements - seriously now, we have just as many "idontlikeit" statements (in just about any AfD in which I comment, I make at least one edit to the article in question and absolutely spend several minutes looking for and hopefully adding sources; sadly most of those in those same AfDs show no real evidence of having done either); now as far as his alleged canvassing, to what extent has it actually resulted in "votes" in the AfDs if at all? I rarely see anyone aside from the regulars in these discussions even after Ikip notifies projects, which really, why wouldn't we want to hear from those who might be more knowledgeable on the subjects under discussion? I am an amateur expert on Western culture related fiction and so work on those articles, but because I don't know much about say mangas, I avoid those AfDs; I frequently find myself having to argue in the Western culture ones with people who clearly have no expertise on the subject and simply don't know about or don't like it; as far as the whole inclusionism-deletionism element, I am increasingly thinking any of these such ideologies should be banned as we are all supposed to be Wikipedians (for that reason I don't have any such userbox on my page anymore); 2) I have seen far worse from others with regards to civility and a number of Ikip's detractors support those users, so we need to enforce civility both ways (I think incivility is never acceptable; just as I reported a user who I thought incivil on ANI, I will defend that same user against unacceptable insults as well as it has to work both ways and we must expect everyone to be civil); 3) the battleground deal goes well beyond Ikip and includes multiple accounts; and 4) his block logs features many self-requested blocks and unblocks, so somewhat hard to make heads or tails out of. But it all comes down to a what will we gain by what you suggest to be an RfC being undertaken for formality as a precursor to an ArbCom? Will we actually improve any articles in the process? Verifying your dog has fleas with a vet bill is apples and oranges versus a published strategy guide, game review, etc. verifying an element of a video game. We should have a common sense standard of notability. I love my dogs, I think of them as family members and aside from winning best Waddle and Dog Who Could Keep a Towel on its head longest (yes, seriously) in relatively local contests not covered in the media, we could all agree they are not worthwhile enough for inclusion here, but when we start to discuss something that is important to say even a million people, then so long as we can verify it in a couple reliable sources, it is worth either developing or at least redirecting to the larger work of fiction or topic, because really having redirects or leaving edit histories intact just provide a convenicen factor. I would be much more willing, especially on the fictional character ones to meet people on a middle merge and redirect with edit history intact ground; people lose me with the notion of outright redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, slow down. Save your points for the RfC, telling me this isn't going to change my mind. Also don't expect the RfC to look anything like what it does now, its only a draft without form and void. Your dog having fleas is something which is verifiable but not encyclopedic. The notability guidelines are designed to keep that sort of stuff out of the encyclopedia, because without them you could write an article on your dogs. If you agree on this than you agree on the principle of notability guidelines, but not how strict they are. You go on to prove my point, if your contest was covered in the independant media than it would be notable by our standards. If something is important to a million people than chances are it has been commented on in reliable sources. If it hasn't been than its hard to say who it is important to and notability becomes a guessing game. Our guidelines seek to objectify this guessing game and give it some basic standards. My gut on them is that they are the best we can do with an encyclopedia of this magnitude. There has to be some line drawn between your dogs vet bill and the winner of American Idol. Both are verifiable, one is of more relevance to the encyclopedia than the other. That's where the notability guidelines come in. Where they draw the line is a matter of opinion. ThemFromSpace 18:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We have seen people say to delete items that have been covered in the media and are important to a million people as "non-notable" anyway. The biggest thing that gets me is how many AfDs I am in which I am the only person actually looking for and adding references. I actually do wish others who say to "keep" would do more of that as well, but at the same time, it is clear that some of those saying to delete not only won't look for sources, but don't want them to be found. I have run into a number of accounts now who have even explicitly said "all" in popular culture, bilateral relations, or fictional character articles are "non-notable" and so we have AfDs in which even if sources are presented, they still act as if nothing has happened thereby reflecting a false consensus. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

←I agree with most of what you said. Although I !vote to delete articles fairly often I don't put many up for AfD and quite a few that I put up get speedied. Unless I feel that the article is around for promotional purposes or it violates our BLP standards I will probably just stick a notability tag on a questionable article unless it is completly unsourced. When I !vote to keep at AfD I supply a reason countering the delete statements issued until then and, if the notabiltiy is in question, appropriate sources; like I did here. When articles are unsourced and I doubt sources exist (after looking) the article would be a good candidate for AfD. This includes highly in-depth "fancruft" that goes beyond the scope of reliable sourcing and is only picked up through original research. I generally don't like it when editors claim that "all" X should stay/go (including inherited notability/nonnotability). Everything should be judged on its own merits and I always try not to stereotype articles when evaluating them at AfD. ThemFromSpace 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

Congradulations! You have succeeded in getting the article deleted. Thank you.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The closing administrator left a very well-written message at the AfD. I suggest you read it over carefully to understand the deletion process here at Wikipedia. Also note that there are avenues you can pursue if you feel the discussion was closed improperly. ThemFromSpace 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher

Hi, Themfromspace. I have granted you NPWatcher per your request here. After looking over a few of your contributions, your talk page, and your block log, I feel you can be trusted with the tool. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ThemFromSpace 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

List of rebel groups is simply a list. Do we really need references? Each article will do it sufficiently! --Againme (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hello. Per WP:STAND stand alone lists are regular articles which need to abide by policies like WP:V. Take a look at some of our featured lists to see how well-cited they are. A major difference between lists and categories is that categories don't need citations like lists do. Category:Rebel groups wouldn't need these citations but as a list this grouping does. ThemFromSpace 13:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Drv for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [4].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

VAW-126 Page

I reverted this page because your claim of copyright violation is incorrect. The source of information for this article came from an official United States Government website. It is considered public domain and not subject to copyright protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain

TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch, thanks for reverting. I didn't know military information like that was public domain. ThemFromSpace 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jennalee Ryan

Nice work on the article. Thanks for your help. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) ThemFromSpace 03:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Warnings re Illuminati

Yeah... I suppose I was getting into an edit war. Fair enough. I just get frustrated constantly having to tell IP addresses and new accounts that the consensus of regular editors to the article is that it already mentions Angels and Demons book, that the movie is derivative of that book, and so adding a line about the movie is redundant trivia that does not add anything new to the article. I have posted messages on the talk page about this, I have posted 'Hidden text' messages about this in the article itself (in BIG BOLD LETTERING so people don't miss it)... and yet every few days another IP or new account come along and wants to add it. Could you keep an eye on this... I am concerned that at least some of these IP addresses and new accounts are simply trying to promote the movie by adding it to the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, no matter if you are "right" or not 3rr is a hard set limit for content disputes not involving copyvios or BLP problems. ThemFromSpace 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for reverting my external links edit. I agree with your choice. I only added it to try to be more fair to other opinions on the issue. Your reasoning is very helpful. Thanks again, Kingturtle (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. ThemFromSpace 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

Hi. I haven't had a chance to study your evidence thoroughly, but I noticed one item that I would recommend revising. The last sentence of WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence#Ikip has engaged in mass-scale canvassing of the ARS includes a diff from Ikip to me that feels out of place. It's a response to concerns I had about an Anastasia AfD and refactoring, nothing to do with ARS. I have included a variation of that diff in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence#Flatscan.

Since I'm here, it looks like you missed a signature at the workshop page in this edit, comment beginning "::7.1 and 7.2". Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on both calls. I'll go through and see if that needs to be moved. ThemFromSpace 04:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Networked Insights

Hi Themfromspace,

Quick question, I noticed you removed some of the self standing media coverage links. I read the Wiki policy you referenced and I think I understand why you did it (is it because Wikipedia doesn’t encourage self standing links out of the body of the text?). I realize that it’s my ignorance and that the answer is somewhere in the documentation, but If you could spare few seconds, I would appreciate a brief explanation. My rational for putting them in the first place was that they cover the company's product (SocialSense) and would help the reader by providing richer external explanation about additional functionality. What do you think is the best way to incorporate these links? Should I just reference them next to the product name? Thnx--PiRSqr (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. "Media coverage" links fall under our guidelines for external links. These guidelines are long and complicated, but the jist of it is that links like those should only be used to link to material that cannot be properly integrated into a Wikipedia article, such as material which would be a copyright violation to present or long lists of statistics which would bungle up the article. You may link to them as References, if they back up any material which is in the article, although each link itself would have to qualify as a reliable source (a quick glance shows that they do qualify). Try adding additional relevant material to the Wikipedia article and then citing it with the media coverage in the "references" section. I can help out if you don't know how to cite references. ThemFromSpace 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense! I made few references in the main article but I'm still not sure if I did it correctly. Could you show me how to do one and I will do the rest? I really I appreciate the patience and all the help--PiRSqr (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The references that are in the article are done properly. Once a {{reflist}} or <references/> template is in the References section than you can create inline citations. This article appears to follow the following form: <ref>[www.referencewebsite.com] Title of Website Publisher Author date of publication</ref> . Open the edit window of the page and you should see how the previous block of text is manipulated to create the different inline citations. I hope this helps. ThemFromSpace 21:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Gold Coast

I've added a neutral reference website (Hong Kong Tourist Board, a semi-official tourist organization) for the article of Hong Kong Gold Coast, that makes it more notable. If you still think it is not notable, you may help to provide more reference on it. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

S

Are you saying these articles needs referencing, Lost (TV series), List of Lost episodes FL, Doctor Who FA, List of Doctor Who episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes FL needs referencing? --TIAYN (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Babylon 5 locations.

Don't bother nominating them for AfD--I don't know of anyone who thinks they deserve to exist as separate articles. Just do a redirect and copy/paste merge to List of locations in Babylon 5... Once they're all there, we can go about cleaning them up. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I considered that but I couldn't find any reliable sources to back up more than a namedrop of the locations. I won't contest your action, but I don't ever personally merge anything unless its adequately sourced. ThemFromSpace 08:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll own finding the sources--check my prior work on Spoo. I acquired a number of hardcopy Babylon 5 books for that effort. By the time the location articles are cleaned up and moved from category to list, I expect a severe curtailing of the text, but am certain there's sourcing to establish V for each entry, and N for the list. Overall, I'd expect to cut the number of Babylon 5 articles by at least 50%: Merging minor characters and locations into lists will do most of that. There's plenty that can be done with that fictional realm to bring it up to current standards--see my work on Veronica Mars-related stuff--but the show has been off the air so long there's not a lot of people interested in it. B5 has literary value--a lot of its hallmarks (political realism, serial continuity) were influences of the Battlestar Galactica reimagining--but a good bit of that value is obscured by the fragmentary way the info is presented, as well as the typical fan synthesis problems. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work on those articles. I don't doubt the artistic and encyclopedic value of the series as a whole (I was a big fan back in the day) and its nice to see that its getting the treatment it deserves here. ThemFromSpace 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does not match with Wiki Guidelines?

Hi,

You have removed an external link i have placed in Indian art Page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_art.

I think it's a good resource to know the different types of Indian Tribal Arts available. These guys at VibranTrbies are creating good Indian Tribal Arts with Animated movies. Even they are with an inetractive game with a name "Music Binds All'. I thought this can be placed as a link here as a source to about the India Triabl Art & music.

May be i have placed a long sentence for this after the link. This could be shortened.

Please let me know if i am wrong with this.

Thanks!

The relevant guideline here is WP:EL. The site you linked to is promotional in nature, so it isn't allowed per WP:ELNO #5: Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, in the mobile phone article, don't link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. It also doesn't provide any sort of encyclopedic material that can bolster the article. Articles about general subjects (such as Indian art) can't have links to specific companies or organizations within the general field. ThemFromSpace 05:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)