Jump to content

User talk:Themfromspace/Archive 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Themfromspace! I am Stardust8212 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Stardust8212 11:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page before reverting

If an editor's note references a talk page, please read it before reverting an article. We're trying to constructively improve the Friedman article in the spirit of WP:UNDUE and you are not helping things. Bkalafut (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Recordings

I beg to differ. Was there a recording of an arrangement for rock band of Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 on the Symphony No. 9 (Bruckner) page? Did we have a silent video of a performance of Beethoven's Ninth? No. Unless you can prove to me that Wikipedia has sunk so low that it prohibits recordings and videos (with audio) of certain works on the relevant article pages, I will not believe that having one there violated a principle. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:20 23 July, 2008 (UTC)

Non-heterosexuals article rewritten

Hi, I've rewritten Non-heterosexuals and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-heterosexuals to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you! Banjeboi 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

International Society of Intelligent Biological Medicine

1. I'm an admin.
2. I will watch the article to keep copyvio out. DGG (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Explain

Could you please explain why you deleted what I added to Further Readings in Salmon as I do not believe they are Spam. They are published articles and proceedings that are in the Canadian National Library. I also included their ISBN numbers. What am I missing? Could someone not have sent me a message before deleting what I had added? sfucss 31 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfucss (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


It appears that you are editing under a single-purpose account created only to promote the organization which your username indicates that you probably are affiliated with. Just because they are published articles in the Canadian National Library doesn't mean they belong in the salmon article. Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a collection of links. Thank you. And by the way, when talking on pages such as this you can create your signature by typing four tildes (~) in a row. Themfromspace (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Being a new user I created a user name similar to the website that I am linking articles to as I was trying to be transparent. The articles I am linking to are through a University and do not represent any one point of view. They bring the foremost experts together in conferences and then publish the proceedings from the meetings. This includes community, industry and governments perspectivies on the issue at hand. The articles you erased were about Salmon management and conservation - a very big issue for people who care and work closely with salmon. The salmon section even icludes a section on aquaculture and includes links to groups who are for or against it (I would consider those to be spam!) I could understand if you were erasing articles that are trying to promote a particular perspective or get more more members but this is simply not the case in this situation. Do articles related to Salmon conservation and management not belong in the Salmon section - if not then please tell me where to put them! Can I not support a group or subject by posting proceedings from meetings where experts come together and share their views and findings. I am further confused because there are already articles on Wikepedia from this University and nobody has erased those! Thank you for your time![[Sfucss] talk] 9:15, 1 August

Questions about Rowdies Rugby Football Club changes

Please explain the rationale in the changes made to Rowdies Rugby Football Club. The external links that were deleted were relevant to the existing article. Also, what sources would you like referenced to justify this article? Tantaris (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The first link was a sponsor, which is considered spamming. The second was a link to a site that didn't seem to be related to the Rowdies club, a search in that site's engine for "Rowdies" turned up no hits at all. The next two links were to conferences the team was in, but they were already mentioned earlier in the article and the same sites were linked via each converence's respective article. The last link was dead, but if I'm guessing right, it was to an unrelated team in Manitoba with the same name. If you want to add relevant links to the article you should consult the guidelines on external links to see if they comply. Regarding sourcing, Wikipedia requires that all factual information be verifiable by reliable third party sources. Newspapers, online articles, books, and other sources can be used to obtain verification. Sources used should be cited at the end of the article. See WP:Verifiability for more detail regarding verification. --Themfromspace (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Carfax 250 Edits

Hello Themfromspace!

Thank you for contacting me and advising me of a possible conflict of interest. I have reviewed the information you provided and believe the edits I have made so far have not been promotional but rather neutral and factual information.

Since I am working for Carfax, however, it seems I should have posted the information on the talk pages rather than make a direct edit. Is this correct? Also, if my username comes across as promotional to you, then perhaps I should change this? My intentions are to be true and clear about who I work for while contributing neutral information to Wikipedia – I am a huge fan! Also, considering my newness, would you advise I seek mentorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User)?

Thank you again for contacting me and I am looking forward to your reply.

All the Best,

CARFAX (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(Notice: Conflict of Interest on Carfax 250. (TW))

Pixologist rewritten

Hi, I've rewritten pixologist and encourage you to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixologist to see if your concerns have been addressed. Please note that a name change to pixel artist is almost assured if the article is kept. Banjeboi 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolivian_vote_of_confidence_referendum,_2008

You reverted this edit: [1] with a talk page message claiming it was vandalism. Looking at this edit, that doesn't seem to be the case. Could you explain? Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of SOA related products, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ==

--RichardVeryard (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

POV in Hail Satan

Could you help me spot where some POV needs fixing, and I'll fix it or I'll put your comments on talk so others can? I've tinkered with the lead, maybe you'll think it's a bit better now. Sticky Parkin 11:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I put some South Park in it for you, thanks for the tip-off. Now I just need to find some refs for it.:) Sticky Parkin 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Madrid Air Disaster

The sources that were being quoted, when I made my adjustments, were speculating. I was aware of the tag relating to current disaster, however, figures quoted were not tallying amongst the major news sources. El Mundo initally said 45 dead, El Pais and Telemadrid were reporting 60-70, with BBC News and CNN reporting just 21. I removed the information based on this and have updated it with more accurate corroborated information. Despite this, thank you for the heads-up! --Adon8801 (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Explain

Please, could you explain why have you deleted the links I added on some composers' pages? Magazzini Sonori is an italian website, collecting music played in emilia-romagna, without any promotional or economic aim. I've added links for people who wants to freely listen to the music of the composers they are searching for. Listening to music is essential to know a composer. Why don't you delete links to websites offering free scores too (in Mozart page there is a link like that)? The method for removal should be the same, don't you think so? Thank you --Stefania.Saccani (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Please, could you explain why have you deleted the links I added? Thank you. --Stefania.Saccani (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bel Ami George Duroy section

Sorry Themfromspace as I also already told the users Jamesbeat and 3vil-Lyn who constantly removed the George Duroy section added by Accountforwp. I agreed with Accountforwp that George Duroy is relevant to this Bel Ami page because he is the founder of the brand and is also already mentioned in the introduction paragraph.

Agreed with them that Accountforwp should not add links to untrusted newspapers, however the link to the EU Trademark office is fully in line with rules.

Therefore I will re-added the George Duroy section and report your action to the admin Papa November and ask him for a ban of at least a week on your account. Kind regards from Dallas --123pure456 (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bel Ami George Duroy section

Sorry Themfromspace as I also already told the users Jamesbeat and 3vil-Lyn who constantly removed the George Duroy section added by Accountforwp. I agreed with Accountforwp that George Duroy is relevant to this Bel Ami page because he is the founder of the brand and is also already mentioned in the introduction paragraph.

Agreed with them that Accountforwp should not add links to untrusted newspapers, however the link to the EU Trademark office is fully in line with rules.

Therefore I will re-added the George Duroy section and report your action to the admin Papa November and ask him for a ban of at least a week on your account. Kind regards from Dallas --123pure456 (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your absurd reporting on Papa November's talk page. I suggest you read over the rules of Wikipedia more carefully as editing for NPOV, attack articles, and reverting page vandalism is all part of how Wikipedia functions. Furthermore, you are arguing against consensus and have no right to claim ownership of the article; Wikipedia is a group project, not a smear campaign. Themfromspace (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bel Ami Page

Hi Themfromspace question; why do you delete the George Duroy section becaus there was according to you no source provided and leave all the other statements which also have no source on the page? Ex. statement that Sebastion Bonnet is working as a camera man,where is the source? Same for Johan Paulik as camera man, where is the source. Bel Ami is Bratislava based, where is the source? Estabilshed by George Duroy, where is the source? Founded in 1993, where is the source? Best known models? who says so, where is the source?

So please delete all the section or statements for which there is no source or I will do it for you :-)

--123pure456 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read THIS so you can understand Wikipedia's policy on citing sources, since you obviously do not at the present. Themfromspace (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but this does not an answer to my question, so still waiting why you delete the George Duroy section and leave the rest on the page. --123pure456 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Articles up for Deletion; Mega-Zine

Thank you for your concern. I now reconize clearly that two votes is not a consensous (lol what was I thinking???). I will kindly step aside and allow the process to proceed so that consensous can be achived. RockManQ (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, could you help here lol, i'm not sure how to undue closing it RockManQ (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry it's back up now, I undid my closure. You're now free to continue the deletion discusson. Thanks, RockManQ (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jarrett Bush's blog

Please explain to me why a link to Jarrett Bush's blog is inappropriate external link content. I've noted such links on many biographical pages. Also you accuse me of "Spamming" links on many pages? Please qualify this with some evidence if you're so sure of that. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brent Csutoras

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brent Csutoras, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Csutoras. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? CyberGhostface (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you feel that editors of certain articles have a conflict of interest, please explain why on the article's talk page before or after tagging the article as such. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I strongly believe my inclusions of links from the BroadwayWorld database are NOT spam. It is a unique resource for theatre, unlike any other database (IMDB, IBDB, etc.) and contains signficant amount of the individual's information. The links are desirable additions to WP articles. Please follow-up with me. Thanks you. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The pages from BroadwayWorld contain no information that could be (or already is) included within the articles themselves. Unless there is information that is impossible to transfer to the articles without violating copyright then the pages should not be linked to. Themfromspace (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
BroadwayWorld has their own newsdesk, and thus their own articles, compile credits from around the world in their database (which aren't available anywhere else) and works hand-in-hand with the people themselves to include other information, resumes, headshots and other information. I believe they also associate their videos and interviews with their database entries. Also, they have an extensive amount of their own photographs. None of that can be included on WP.
Wouldn't all the data on IMDB and IBDB go against your aforementioned comment? All of that data "could" be included within the articles themselves. Again, their site is rapidly becoming the major resource for theatre-related credits, photos, articles, yada yada for people. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have updated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BroadwayWorld - thanks. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandenbrink Design

Please advise on HOW this page should be changed in order to NOT make it look like an advertisement. All the facts can be found all over the internet and I have removed all superlatives.--Coachbuilder enthousiast (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, information on what makes the company notable never hurts. The facts don't hurt the article, but they don't seperate the company from any others and therefore don't prove why it belongs on Wikipedia. A brief history might help, and objective discussion on how the company plays in with the greater market as a whole. If the company doesn't tie in with the subject then it isn't notable and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but was one of the links removed from Harper Lee really in violation of WP:EL? The entry
* [http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org Encyclopedia of Alabama]: [http://eoa.auburn.edu/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1126 Harper Lee] was from Auburn University and the Alabama Humanities Foundation. I completely agree with removing the nndb link though. --Jh12 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I represent the Encyclopedia of Alabama and would like to know why you are blocking us from listing ourselves as external links. We are not a commercial project, are free to the public, and offer authoritative content based on sound scholarship; the edited entries are written by scholars and experts from across the globe. Please contact me at duboiju AT auburn.edu so we can discuss this further.

Please read over carefully the pages Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:External links to see the guidelines for treating subjects in which you have personal involvement with and linking to them. Themfromspace (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Xidan

I would like to invite you to look at the current article, and see if it can change your vote. Many new sources are added. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

from Talk:Psionics

Neither your comment and my reply deal directly with improvements to the Psionics article. I have moved them here if you would like to continue this discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Additionally, I hate to make accusations, but after glancing over the contributions log of User:Scienceisyourfriend, it appears that he is a single-purpose account created to place that link on the Psionics page and make sure it stays there. His first edit was the addition of the psionics link and his user profile even reads that "the people on other websites might know me as notagh. Just so you people know I'm here, and I'm protecting those links. " A quick google search for "notagh" leads to the sites thepsiworld.net, psionicsonline.net, psionguild.org and (of course) psilinks.net. He has reverted deletions that undo the mention of these sites, although they are all POV, forum sites, sites that require/encourage users to signup/login, or a combination of the above, which doesnt sit well with WP:EL. Themfromspace (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Themfromspace, if Scienceisyourfriend is here solely to promote some website, they will soon grow frustrated with the futility of spamming. On the other hand, they joined just over a month ago, and have under a dozen editing-days under the belt - a pretty clear case of Do not bite the newcomers if ever I saw one. Gently pointing out the relevant policies should be all that is required here. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I commented to the article's talk page as you moved it to my talk page. I feel it is more relevant to the article in question than the user in question (note how I am not biting the newcomer by keeping the discussion about the article) so I reverted the talk page deletions. Themfromspace (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
That is why we have UserTalk pages. Please see WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages for further information. Those two three comments do not deal with the Psionics article, and do not belong in ArticleTalk space. They solely and explicitly discuss a user, who has already been notified of the relevant guidelines. Please repair to a different page (for instance, this one or User talk:Scienceisyourfriend) to continue the personal elements of that discussion.
If you think Scienceisyourfriend has a conflict of interest, we have a noticeboard for that. If you think Scienceisyourfriend is a spam vandal, we have a noticeboard for that. You can even call a request for comment on the user. None of this needs to clog up Talk:Psionics. My interpretation of the contribution log is that it is most consistent with that of a new user who needs a few friendly pointers to learn how things operate around here. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Competition Cams Article

  • Comment - The Competition Cams article has been completely rewritten and re-cited with new, more credible sources. I urge each of the editors that has previously voted against the articles notability, neutrality, etc. to please reconsider.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "Comment"- Please ease up on the editing aggression. The 2 pieces you deleted are important to the company's notbility. One of them, Pro Plasma Nitriding, is an innovation in the automobile industry, so please have some respect. Also, other articles about companies in the same industry include the exact same sponsorship information. Therefore, if you are going to delete that information from one of them, be sure to go ahead and cover the others. Thank you.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Roller racer

Listen, I need help with this article. Its notability is apparently in question, but no one will discuss it. So I removed the tag. You added it back, but still haven't added anything to the discussion. Again, I need help improving this article so help me improve it's notability, or at least discuss why you think it fails to meet notability guideline. This toy was a big part of my childhood, but there is not a lot of information about it that survived the transition to the information age. Mech Aaron (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WildTangent

Please stop deleting factual information. Windows Add/Remove completely uninstalls WildTangent software. There is no reason to spread FUD by including more dramatic means of uninstalling the software. Ssundwall (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)ssundwall

It has been well documented that Add/Remove does not clean out all of the WT software. If you want factual information to remain on Wikipedia, I'd suggest not deleting the COI warning I gave you. Themfromspace (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is well documented then document it. Or, install it, uninstall it it using windows and then see if anything is left. You will find as I did that it's all gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssundwall (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have documented everything which I thought might be controversial. Your edits have all been unsourced outside of related-party sources. Wikipedia prefers third-party sources since they can better achieve NPOV. If there is a specific statement which you want to be documented please tell me and I can cite it. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not removed any of your references but simply put dates by each to provide readers with chronological context since the criticisms you point to cannot be documented beyond the dates of your citations. I also added the FACT that WildTangent software is no longer categorized as spyware/adware by any of the top 10 antispyware software. If you have CURRENT evidence that this is incorrect, then change it and reference it. Otherwise, please leave it as is because it is an accurate statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssundwall (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added a reference from Spybot that was filed just a little over a month ago. That should be recent enough. Also, the criticisms section of the article highlights criticisms users have brought against the software over the years, it does not state that the criticisms are valid, just that they have been noteworthy. Themfromspace (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please leave the Add/Remove Programs option in the reference. It is a fact that it is a viable option for removal. The ones you reference are completely unnecessary but I left them in. Also, the 2008 spybot reference you inserted in fact does not call WildTangent spyware or malware or adware, Read closely and you will see WildTangent in listed in none of those three categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssundwall (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Themfromspace. You have new messages at Aervanath's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Articles for deletion/American Payroll Association

Hi Themfromspace, you wrote:

Comment What evidence do you have about this 'big spam circle'? The article looks keepable, but if it is part of a spam campaign then I'd have to say junk it.

Actually, at the top of the nomination page I suggested why I thought it was a concerted spam effort, providing the links to each of the related articles and evidence about the connection (they were all created in a short period of time by the same editor, who has made edits to no unrelated articles). Hope that's of some use. Bongomatic (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. By your strong wording I thought perhaps there were bunches of articles created with COI sockpuppets or something of the like. I guess I thought you meant circle of users instead of articles. Thanks for your response! Themfromspace (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3: Recon


Manchester Academic Health Science Centre page rewritten

hi Themfromspace, I have improved the content and formatting of the article and added one reference so far. Further improvements to the page will follow in the next day or two. Please see the article's talk page for information on its noteworthiness. Please would you remove the speedy deletion message. Thanks MHSwebManager (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It still seems up in the air to me. I'll let an administrator decide to delete it or pull the tag. Themfromspace (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy nomination for User:Carley.ashford/Britannia Driving School

Hi Themfromspace. I don't think speedy nominations are applicable to items in User space except for copyright infringement. Am I mistaken? Bongomatic (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I looked at the toolbox on the left and saw that it was the toolbox for a mainspace article and not a userpage. I didn't realise that user subpages didn't keep the userpage toolbox. Themfromspace (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Censorship?

Please justify your repeated deletion of links to pornographic websites in the Black Inches article. Since Black Inches is a pornographic magazine, links to websites of photographers who have contributed pornographic images to the magazine appear entirely appropriate to me. Your justification ("removed links to pornsites") suggests to me that you see yourself as some kind of censor. But that is unacceptable. GBataille (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I only see myself as a censor of material that violates Wikipedia terms, in this case WP:EL. I am NOT censoring the sites because they are pornographic in nature because Wikipedia is not censored. The links in question were taken down because they added no relevant information to the article, and they seem to constitute spam. Themfromspace (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


You believe what you want but yout censoring it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.188.22.40 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Induction heater

Hi I will look to add the sources over the next week or so on the induction heater page. Heatingcity (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't edit or delete a page about me?

I edited, for privacy concerns, an article that was written about me, without my knowledge or consent. I edited it under my own name and left a reason in the history, explaining that I don't want all this information about me out there like that.

It was undone and returned to the original, long and detailed (and invasive) article.

Am I to understand that I have no right to edit or remove an article about me that includes information that might be invasive of my privacy, that was published without my knowledge or consent?

It's alright for users to write and submit the article, or for others to come in and edit it, even people I don't know, but I can't change or delete the information about me myself?

This seems absurd.

Cliff Pearson, in reference to the Wikipedia page "Cliff Pearson"--Cliffordbpearson (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OT Page

OK so bear with me cos I'm new to this wiki malarky. I see you have removed some links that I added to the Occupational Therapy page. Can you tell me why so I I can add them in a more appropriate way? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by --Ukot (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Ukot (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack Stack article

You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Stack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.

To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mack Flenniken who had a professional career with the New York Giants and Chicago Cardinals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
WOOPS Typo--it is Jack Sack not Jack Stack. Apologies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Smart Meter

I noticed that you removed my updates on Smart Meter in reference to WP: EL. Please let me know how I can resolve the problem. Is it because I have too many external links or is it having link in the body of the content? I like to get it update without it getting deleted.

Here is the content I like to add in the section: United States of Smart Meter.

California's population and per-person energy use continue to grow at a significant rate. As a result, state energy agencies and utilities are exploring ways to meet customers growing energy needs and offer incentives to conserve and shift usage away from periods of peak demand.

In 2004, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) directed California's investor owned utilities (IOUs) to investigate implementation of an advanced metering infrastructure ("AMI"). AMI "smart" meters would allow customers to take advantage of dynamic rate programs, such as the "Time of Use" (TOU) rates available mostly to industrial customers. Southern California Edison, SCE (www.sce.com), analyzed available AMI technology at that time, and concluded that the limited functionality and operational benefits available at the time would not be cost-effective for SCE's ratepayers. SCE set out to work with meter manufacturers and technology vendors to develop a more advanced meter and communications system that would offer a cost-effective solution with added customer value and convenience. The result is SCE's AMI network called Edison SmartConnect, the nation's most advanced "smart" metering system. The program has redefined the automated metering industry, and is a key component of Edison's smart grid strategy, which brought Edison's grid into the digital age for improved grid management operations.

If possible, I like to have 2 external links in the See Also and External Links section.

Please let me know what I need to do to get it approved on Wikipedia.

Thank you! Smartpage (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Facial Expression

You removed a valid link I added to an external links section of the facial expression page. The approach shown on that website is a non-traditional way of looking at facial expression, it picks up where Duchenne couldn't go further giving the technology of the time. Can you explain why this in not relevant? BTW, thanks for pointing out the talk page. Artifacial (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read over Wikipedia's guidelines on external links and editing with a conflict of interest with Wikipedia. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Stephen Payne

Thanks for the COI comments -- no, there is no conflict of interest -- as I hav provided almost none of the sources or external links for this article -- it is true that I am from Texas and have read about Payne in my paper over the years -- but that is all the connection there is...further, I feel that the article misses the point of the major role that outside paid guns have on our nation's foreign policy and that is why I am tryto edit the article so that it reflects that point of view...Please let me know what you think reflects coi and I'll work with you to fix it -- thanks...--Polticaltexan (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

...also, I don't plan to revert your coi tag (not even sure if I can) -- so again please tell me where you think the portions of the article that are are not neutral are and I will work to correct them -- and I'd appreciate it if you'd remove the coi tag until we have tried to work out the portions that you feel are not neutral -- again, I'm new to this so thanks...--Polticaltexan (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiseat

Can you explain why you delete my version of links section for [Multiseat] article ? I delete dead link HOWTO for Multiseat with X.org under Gentoo And add link to 3D Multiseat with Debian What is wrong ? Darion76 (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the links because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide nor a manual. Wikipedia's links should provide detailed information beyond what the article is capable of telling and/or needed material that is copyrighted. They shouldn't serve to illustrate how to go about doing something. Such content is better off at wikiHow. Themfromspace (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
But all links in this section is howtos !

I do not even imagine what other reference materials are available by subject matter of this article. Moreover, the http://www.linuxtoys.org/multiseat/multiseat.html link is also a howto. Subsection of external links is named "Linux solution", so http://www.linuxtoys.org/multiseat/multiseat.html, http://www.automation.dn.ua/linux/3d-multiseat_en.html, http://blog.chris.tylers.info/index.php?/archives/14-Multiseat-X-Under-X11R6.97.0.html, http://userful.com/ are best materials for this section. Also ther is Windows solution like http://www.miniframe.com/, http://thinsoftinc.com/, http://www.ibik-soft.com/

I am propose change links sections like this:

Darion76 (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Flavaworks

whats your problem man? You think your God of wiki? Get a life. Posting a link to a performer's personal homepage is not spam, its notable you SF. Read the wiki terms man and get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.250.40 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What commentary? Stating facts is NOT commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.250.40 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

First, you really should consider getting another hobby outside of removing people's links. Film Noir of the Week is written by film noir experts about film noir. I write some of the articles but most are written by published film noir writers. Some are college professors; and just about anyone that has done an audio commentary on noir DVDs have contributed to the website.

For example:

William Hare http://books.google.com/books?id=KAMpUVy8X94C&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+hare+film+noir http://books.google.com/books?id=ef1qRwXs4tUC&pg=PT1&dq=william+hare+film+noir

And has written articles on my web page for The Killers, Vertigo, and Hangover Square to name a few.

Eddie Muller http://books.google.com/books?id=iQwy1Ug_eQoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=eddie+muller+film+noir Has written an article on NOTW on The Big Heat

Andrew Spicer is a college professor and wrote a three part series on British Noir.

Ed Sikov has written a number of books on film noir and film including , On Sunset Boulevard: The Life and Times of Billy Wilder and Laughing Hysterically: American Screen Comedy of the 1950s. He wrote an article on Sunset Blvd on NOTW. He recently can be heard doing the audio commentary for the newly released Sunset Blvd. DVD.

These are just SOME examples. Experts all. This is NOT a blog written by one person. It's a collection of film writers that help clarify what film noir is!Steve-O (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Themfromspace. Just so you know, the merit of these links is now being discussed on the WikiProject Films talk page, after Steve-O started adding his links back yesterday. --McGeddon (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Unwatched

  1. "Mga Kantang Galing Sa Loob Ng Kwarto Ko” ‎
  2. 0-60 Magazine ‎
  3. 09/14 2007 ‎
  4. 1,2-dehydroreticulinium reductase (NADPH) ‎
  5. 1-1-7 ‎
  6. 1-2-3 (album) ‎
  7. 1-alkyl-2-acetylglycerol O-acyltransferase ‎
  8. 1-alkyl-2-acetylglycerophosphocholine esterase ‎
  9. 1-alkylglycerophosphocholine O-acetyltransferase ‎
  10. 1-alkylglycerophosphocholine O-acyltransferase ‎
  11. 1-hydroxy-2-naphthoate 1,2-dioxygenase ‎
  12. 1-methyladenosine nucleosidase ‎
  13. 1-phosphofructokinase ‎
  14. 1-pyrroline-4-hydroxy-2-carboxylate deaminase ‎
  15. 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam records ‎
  16. 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam seasons ‎
  17. 1. deild ‎
  18. 1. deild 1976 ‎
  19. 1. deild 1977 ‎
  20. 1. deild 1978 ‎
  21. 1. deild 1979 ‎
  22. 1. deild 1980 ‎
  23. 1. deild 1981 ‎
  24. 1. deild 1982 ‎
  25. 1. deild 1983 ‎
  26. 1. deild 1984 ‎
  27. 1. deild 1985 ‎
  28. 1. deild 1986 ‎
  29. 1. deild 1987 ‎
  30. 1. deild 1988 ‎

John Reaves 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The "D" in WP:BRD means "discuss"

Just to review: when you are Bold and delete something from an article, and someone Reverts your edit because they dispute what you've done, and the reverting editor asks you in the edit summary to Discusss your edit, you're supposed to discuss it, not revert the reversion. That's the essence of WP:BRD. What you're doing is called edit warring, and that's a no-no. Please stop, and while you're at it, please self-revert the edits you just made. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Failycyclopedia.com

Hi. I got in touch with the Internet Watch Foundation. They say that the URL for this site has never been on their watchlist. As to why Google had that message there, it wasn't failcyclopedia that was being blocked. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh interesting! Given the fact that Google wouldnt list the website and the numerous warnings found on the search page, I figured it was that site that was blacklisted. Thanks for the headsup. Themfromspace (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tags on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

I've gone through Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and made a lot of changes so that hopefully the {{Multiple issues| synthesis = August 2008| unbalanced = August 2008| POV = March 2008}}

See also: Human rights in the Pahlavi Dynasty and Human rights in Iran

can be removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't add the tags to the article. I merely restored the one that was taken away with a false rationale (a user removed the tag saying it was unbalanced with the explanation that it was POV). I'm afraid that the article is too long and complicated for me to decide whether the tags go or stay. You should try bringing the tags up for discussion at Wikiproject Iran or Wikiproject Human Rights. Themfromspace (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Explain your reasoning for constant removal of information

Can you please tell me why you keep removing information about the Fair Oaks Recreation and Park District from the Town Center section of Fair Oaks,CA? The article speaks of the Chamber of Commerce and the events that they put on, and the Park District is as much an intregal part of the community as the Chamber of Commerce is...

Writing about the park district in such a manner violates Wikipedia's policy on undue weight. For example, the article on New York City, a featured article, contains only one paragraph on its parks. The individual parks themselves would each have an article displaying the information required in an encyclopedia. The Fair Oaks Recreation and Park District isn't notable (in my opinion) enough for an article about itself, and the information you added offsets the balance of the article as a whole. It isn't needed and furthermore violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies as the editor who added it was clearly affiliated with the park. Themfromspace (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

NEOTU

Hi Themfromspace. I am already in touch with Fabrictramp regarding this "problem" of conflict of interest. Please could you check on his talk page our conversation subject NEOTU. I am also in touch with Arakunem who thinks that what I did is not a problem. Please could check also his talk page subject NEOTU. Thank you. Yours, Gerard Dalmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have time please read the few lines that I just put on Fabrictremp talk page just below your comments. Thank you. Gerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just seen that you just added again the waring of conflict of interest. Have you read what I have written just below your comments on Fabrictremp talk page. Let me tell you that I am VERY disappointed by Wikipedia Administrators. I though that you could have tried my point of view and answer to it. Please could you comment this behavior which is very armful and exclusive. I will remove your warning and hope to read something more positive from you. Gerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As you suggested I have changed my user name Neotu to another one Neogejo But it does not seem to work. I cannot see any change. Woooooh! This is very complicate. You know I just started Wikipedia few weeks ago and I am a little lost in this system which is more complex that I imagined. Thank you for your help. Gerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Give it some time. Note that you can't do the change yourself, an admin has to see your request and change it from there. You submitted the username change request successfully; I see no reason why an admin wouldn't go ahead and make the change. Themfromspace (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Woah, hold on there. The naming policy I was citing was that one's username cannot promote an entity in which the user is affiliated. After a google search of "Neogejo", I discovered that you founded the company that you want to be named. This is prohibited by the guidelines. You should try to change your username to some entity in which you are not directly related. Themfromspace (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Themfromspace. After having a lot of Kafkaesque nightmares this morning with Wiki rules I was finally able to change my user name to Neoge. In order to harmonize my user names between the French and English Wiki I would like to change, in the French Wiki, my user name to Neoge. I cannot find the page where to do so. Do you have any idea? Thank you. Neoge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoge (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not very familiar with the French Wikipedia, nor can I read French. I'd suggest contacting an administrator on the French Wikipedia and asking him for advice. Themfromspace (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I found what to do. I did the request to change my user name to Neoge. I must say that the French are very slow. Nothing is done so far. When I read their waiting list I understand that I have to be patient and wait several days before getting an answer... I would like to thank you for your help regarding "the conflict of interest" and other points. Now I am sure that I have to learn more about Wiki to fit its rules. --Neoge (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Spotsylvania Towne Center

the reason i wrote the atricle Spotsylvania Towne Center is to give information to people. And when is this going to be deleted anyway? 2nd, i think that if you ever bothered to read the article Spotsylvania Towne Center, you would know that the article has no ads so that people would go there or anything that has to do with ads other than list the stores that are inside the Spotsylvania Towne Center. Morefight (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight

For your information, although I tagged the article as being nothing but spam, it was speedily deleted under another category: similiar articles recently deleted via a deletion discussion. Themfromspace (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Black Inches

Please note that I have not added a new section to the Black Inches article, as you misleadingly observe on my talk page. Rather, I introduced a title for an existing section and inverted the order of the two blocks of text. Please read articles more carefully before commenting on them. GBataille (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the welcome Themfromspace! Lysimachos (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call

[2] —BradV 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Deacom Inc

Themfromspace, ok - no problem. I was just trying to add from the resources used in the wiki post. Did this cause the entire Wiki to be deleted? That was a bit drastic... all you had to do was let me know sooner. Please advise and thanks. Vdc ent (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure WHY the Deacom article was deleted. See my talk page for reference.Vdc ent (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have anything to do with the deletion of the Deacom article. The log of the page shows that it was initially speedy deleted under Criteria A7, which is an article "about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable."
If you have any concerns regarding the article's fate, take it up with one of the two deleting administrators, preferable User:Stifle who deleted the page first. Themfromspace (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Film festivals

Er, not to fuss too much, but--why's "horror festivals such as Terror Film Festival (Philadelphia, PA)" OK when "smaller niche events such as Toronto After Dark Film Festival" is reverted as promotional? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The user who added it went around a bunch of other film festival articles promoting the same festival. I didn't bother cleaning up the rest of the spam, but I'll be back for it eventually when I'm free. Themfromspace (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting of edits to Peter Steigerwald

Hey these edits where not 'spam'. One was to link to a genunie interview with him and the other was correcting vanalisim to the page (changing top cow to bottom cow). I will wait for you to reply before I change this back.--Lotsofinterviews (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the link to lotsofinterviews.com because it appeared that you were promoting it because of its similarity to your username. The link can stay in as long as you don't add any more links to that website. If more start popping up on wikipedia, then they'll be removed as spam. Themfromspace (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi! Would you mind weighing in on this AfD: Brownmark Films The discussion has been re-listed several times and I'm hoping to finally get consensus on it. Thanks! SERSeanCrane (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editor: I do keep trying to add material to Aaron L. Mackler that will conform and show that he is influential way outside of academic circles. I could easily show his notability and peer reviewed articles and all that, but I am new to this and haven't figured it out. I can't even figure out how to make a footnote. He has millions of articles in peer reviewed journals and is konwn worldwide for his contributions to Jewish Ethics, which is not primarily what he works on at Duquesne University where he is a professor. So, if I only knew how to do it, I'm am certain that this article could conform. I'll keep trying. The two articles in the existing Bibliography aren't even his most important. Thanks, Lrnmwiki Lrnmwiki (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Themfromspace: You sent me a message to stop making promotional edits, to avoid being banned from editing. What I was doing was updating existing links to my web site. Almost all of these links were created by others. Most of the updated links go to a page at http://jeff560.tripod.com/mathword.html. The site was previously hosted by AOL, which has recently stopped hosting web sites. If you search Wikipedia for jeff570 (part of the old URL) you will see quite a few links to my old site, almost all created by others. I would like to update those links as I have the time. Jeff560 (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delaware and Hudson Canal

Actually, many of those links were relevant per WP:EL ... I put them there when I wrote the article, and they do offer information about the former lands of the canal and the (many) remaining sections of it for visitors.

In this edit, I removed the truly irrelevant links.

Not all links to external organizational websites are necessarily spam. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was attracted to that page by an editor who was adding a link to multiple pages. I returned to the canal article and took a look at all the links and cleaned them up per WP:EL and I'll explain my rationale for each one here. I removed www.centuryhouse.org, www.dhthc.org, and www.dandhconservancy.org because they were links to organizations that seek to take care of the canal. These are irrelevant to the article, they would fit on an article about each organization itself but a link to any organization with a goal would be promotional and borderline NPOV. I removed the link to canalmuseum.org similiarly because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The link to the Neversink Valley Area Museum was kept because the museum's role in the canal was discussed in the article. The links to the Canal Liner Park and orangecountygov.com contain information on the canal that isn't in the article and would be hard to work around without a copyvio. The link to the map stays, of course, as do the links to the valuable engineering pictures. Themfromspace (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I agree with what you've kept and removed. Century House is linked at Snyder Estate Natural Cement Historic District, where it's more relevant anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind creating Delaware and Hudson Canal Museum to give that link its proper home, since you deleted it from the article? I'm a little busy at the moment. Go see the guidelines at WP:MUSEUM. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I can have a stub up and running in a bit, with the link included. Themfromspace (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For creating a decent beginning for Delaware and Hudson Canal Museum on a very short notice. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Please research before flagging spam

Hello, You are removing valid additions to the Boston Whaler Article, I have been put in charge of updating the companies Wiki Article, It is outdated, and lacks a lot of information, the link i provided is a official Whaler website, for owners, you have to be a owner to sign up, and you have to prove you are a owner by providing your VIN number.

There is a ton of information to provide, from history, to new events and models recently launched, to struggles causing the largest downsize of the company in history.

If the wiki users request the information provided to be correct and current, Allow us to provide correct and quality information.

Davidhtn (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit any of the article's content, just the link to the organization. The posted link had several problems with Wikipedia's policies on external links. It is an exclusive site that most people can't enter without logging on to it. Although it is operated by the company itself, there is already an official link posted in the article, and the one to the owner's club doesn't really add anything to the encyclopedia. You could reference the club in the article, but the link doesn't belong in the external links section. Also please read Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest if you have a personal involvement with the corporation. The gist of the guidelines is that you have to be very careful to keep a neutral point of view (NPOV) and avoid unduly advertising the company that you are affiliated with. Themfromspace (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should provide the information people need to know, The goal of providing links to our network sites is to help owners find the information they need. There are other websites listed (not owned by whaler) which have dated information. There is plenty of content for people to access without registering on the owners club. To say the link does not belong in the external links section is false, it has more reason to be there than continuous Wave, and Whaler Central which both have advertising interests.

I understand the advertising rules, and have been advised to only provide up to date information. While wikipedia has rules on conflict of interest, If we do not provide this information, it will never find its way to wikipedia.

So again I request you really research links before removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhtn (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sarey Savy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sarey Savy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy. Thank you. Call me Bubba (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

MacGyver problems

Hi: How can I continue the edit war going on at the "List of problems solved by MacGyver" article? I would like to get others to help revert the article back to its previous state, rather than running up against the 3R or is it the 5R rule? I would appreciate any help you could offer me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Its the 3RR, and 2. to me your edits constitute vandalism, as they are purposely going against the community consensus at the AfD. If you really want to go about restarting the article, you should take it up with deletion review, if that fails then I don't think there's anywhere else to go for now (although you could try asking the closing admin to let you userfy the article so you could attempt to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards and then reintroduce it for creation). Themfromspace (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am more interested in edit warring because atm that is the only solution I believe: AfD and deletion review have been exhausted as options. Is there a way to gather together enough users so that we can circumvent the 3R rule and continually revert the article to its proper state?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I've brought your recent actions regarding this article up for discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard. Themfromspace (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Snake handling

Anybody can edit. The whole article needs sources. Why not tag the whole article instead of attacking a non-registered edit with a wholesale revert? Why not edit all the other crap in the article, and remove the incorrect statements that are not sourced, rather than reverting some of the accurate information that is unsourced?

Wait, I can guess why! IP editor! I am!

The information is accurate, and is actually said in the rest of the article, just poorly. Go ahead and delete all of unsourced Wikipedia, please, rather than attacking IPs. --69.225.11.246 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I had the article on my watch list and I saw you add unsourced statements, and per Wikipedia's policy I had a right to remove them if I felt they could be contested since they were unsourced. You may keep them in if you wish, its no big deal really, but it would be good to find a citation for a claim where the practice originated. Themfromspace (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I stop by Wikipedia about once or twice a year, just to laugh at the "anybody can edit" claim by attempting to edit an article in my area. This isn't close to the lamest reversion of well-written text over the years. But I know, I know, Wikipedia is a private playground, not an encyclopedia. --69.225.11.246 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Replying to an editor's message to me from July...

Quick question: is it really worth replying to a message directed to me six months ago, that I replied to at the time? The other editor is already difficult enough without bringing up old issues anew. Somno (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, since he's still his grandson which means he still has a conflict of interest when editing about him. Themfromspace (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That was the user's first message on here, and it's likely he didn't know the policies at the time. They have been explained to him since then (whether he has taken them on board is another issue). I just think he's going to see this as "bullying" (which he has previously accused people of when they explain things to him) and it's not going to help the situation. Although honestly, I don't know what would help the situation, since six months later he's still not working collaboratively with other editors. Somno (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I found a notice about him at WP:COIN so I thought he started up again. Themfromspace (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Leonard Sax edit

But your revert got immediately reverted. The Leonard Sax people (i.e. Fritzvonturin) will not let any criticism stand on that page... I would appreciate it if you helped keep them at bay further. DarwinPeacock (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

username change

Hi i requested a change for my username —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimwalez (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Suspected sock puppets/Anoshirawan (2nd)

Hello Themfromspace. It seems most likely to me that these IPs belong to User:Šāhzādé, who is already blocked as a sock of Anoshirawan. Šāhzādé seems to be based in Germany, which is where these IPs are from. However, a checkuser run will be hard to get because they usually don't like to confirm IPs. If we can make the case on 'ethnic' grounds then an indef block could be possible. This requires showing that User:Šāhzādé and these IPs think alike on most matters. Are you sure this is the case? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Classical Music

Hello,

I've undone your removal of Classicol.com. I'm not sure why you did this, maybe you would be kind enough to comment on your concern, but having looked at other external links on this article, I felt ClassicOL would be a suitable addition. Many thanks for your consideration... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.129.200 (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, your link doesn't really add anything to the article that wasn't already to be found on Wikipedia. Also, since you added it to several other articles at the same time I assumed it was for promotional purposes. Themfromspace (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, only just read this. Please accept my apologies... The reason I added this link was because I was rather surprised by the quality of the current list and felt ClassicOL was worth including on a number of pages, nothing to do with promotion - I now realise adding in several places isn't appropriate. Sorry, was having fun, and wasn;t intending to cause trouble... i still think it's worth a link somewhere on wiki which is why I focused on the main classical music page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.129.200 (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for voicing your concerns, Im of the opinion, that because you have already made your position clear, that informing you of a template that helps raise awareness of flagged revs and your position is in fact not canvassing.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Author writing about and defending himself

I noticed your comment on the discussion page for Gene (novel)? You might be interested in the discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard for this same author's Decipher book.[3] Piano non troppo (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look-see at the thread. Themfromspace (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Stuart_Campbell_(journalist)

Hi there!

Thanks for the message, I have added a {{npov}} tag onto the article as you requested. You are free to remove it once the article gets a neutral point of view.

Hope this helps!

The Helpful One 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Were you going to summarize what you found to the spam report? --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Or have you already moved on, perhaps? --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot I left that message there. Basically my findings were the same as yours and the other people's. I don't have any names/IPs to add to the mess that weren't discovered in this case or the previous one. I think the problem's being taken care of now with the addition of the three sites to XLinkBot. Themfromspace (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case concerning Korlzor

You have been helping fight vandalism inflicted by various IP sockpuppets of the blocked User:Korlzor. You may be interested in a sockpuppetry case I have opened here. Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit of Timeshare page

Response:

My edit of jan 15th,2009 did two things: 1 It deleted the info about ARDA and Timeshare Resellers. -ARDA is an organization who sole purpose is to help developers of full priced timeshare(TS) and to completely shut down the secondary market. So to have a section which says they are " developed guidelines on resales activities in order to prevent unethical and unprofessional trade in the secondary market." is a joke. - Timeshare resellers are a reasonable reseller of TS but they are in the business of reselling TS. For this article to suggest that they are a good and unbiased guide on how to or where to buy timeshares is also a joke!! 2. I added info on "how to buy" and "how to sell". There is only one way to do this in an unbiased way. Point people to places which are not in the business of buying and selling TS. Places like the timeshare user group and timeshare forums. Both these websites are completely unbiased because they are run by timeshare owners (not developers of TS resorts) for the sole purpose of helping other timeshare owners. BUT if you do not like the article pointing to those website. Just saying that anyone can search the web for consumer based timeshare advice would be a good place to start. Bill4728 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC) bill4728 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill4728 (talk • contribs)

Even looking over your response, its clear that your edit was motivated by private interests and a conflict of interest. Also note that Wikipedia is not a how-to site. It should provide objective coverage of the information at hand, not a biased presentation either way. If it was up to me I'd gladly delete the whole page and replace it with "Timeshares are a scam! Avoid them at all costs!" but as that would violate a dozen and a half Wikipedia policies, I can't bring myself to make that move. The article here to help people make an informed decision on whether to buy a timeshare or not, it only exists to document an overview of the concept of timeshare real estate. Themfromspace (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision of article

Please see my complete rewrite of Alexander Fiske-Harrison and comments on the AfD page. --Bigjimedge (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just responding to you as you messaged me here. I still stand by my delete vote with the same rationale as before. Themfromspace (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rebreather

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Rebreather. I've often felt that the article had far too many external links, but have shied away from disputing it. I think the problem lies in the desire to provide as much information as possible, leading to a tendency to leave it up to the reader to follow external links to get the information, rather than present the info within the article. Of course, that avoids the requirement for article text to meet WP:V, which I guess is my principal objection to that style of article. Anyway, if you're up to the challenge of reducing the number of external links, you can count on my support at least. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Themfromspace (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Anthony has commented at Talk:Rebreather to explain his re-additions of external links and invited discussion. You might want to correct or amplify my response there. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Community Organizing

Feel free to comment when you think I'm adding things that are personal opinion. As far as I can tell, what I'm saying is well supported in the literature. Part of the issue is that there is a vague idea of "community organizing" and a more narrow vision that has emerged post-Alinsky. It's really only the neo-Alinsky vision that is specific enough to write an entry around. However, I'm trying to maintain earlier aspects that acknowledge the broader sense in which some use it. It's a balancing act. But, again, I'm welcome to comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronSchutz (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the last change, the deletion of social workers, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in community organizing, or who is writing about community organizing, who would disagree. Social work departments have almost entirely eliminated focuses in community organizing--Pittsburgh and CUNY are among the few exceptions. AaronSchutz (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, I said what you're doing is a good thing. The only things I found slightly objectionable were the edit summaries that you used, but I can't complain about your cleanup job since the article definitely needs it. Themfromspace (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If any ADMINISTRATOR sees this....

The place I'm currently (not) editing at is under some IP block so I'm asking for IP block exemption. If any admins out there are just happen to see this within the next few hours, please forward my request on to whomever handles this type of thing. This isn't the main IP I use for editing, its only at a campus library, but I'd still like to get permission to edit from here since I'm gonna be hanging out here a bit for the next few months. For what its worth, the block is on 192.77.143.0/24 and it was blocked by Deskana as a result of a checkuser case and it is set to expire on 27 July. I'll be back at my computer in about 16 hours to ask to be unblocked if nobody's forwarded this on... Themfromspace (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I just checked WP:IPEC to see if I could pass on the request for you. The procedure is:
  • Request IP block exemption as part of an unblock request. You must ask from your registered account. Requests posted to the user talk page of the IP address will be automatically declined. Administrators granting this right may sometimes need to consult a checkuser to confirm the problem, or may wish to obtain further review by posting the request onto an administrative list or page for discussion if unfamiliar with the case.
If I read it correctly, the (somewhat convoluted) unblock request page seems to indicate you'll need to put a {{unblock-ip}} template at the bottom of this page with {{unblock-ip |your campus ip address |your message requesting IP block exemption |blocking admin}} as the parameters. If you don't know your IP address at campus, you could browse http://www.whatismyip.com/ from a campus pc. Hope that does the trick for you. --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have granted you IP Block Exemption. Enjoy. --Deskana (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everybody! I had to go away unexpectedly for a time, so I apologise for the late notice. Themfromspace (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Soundout

I have noticed that you nominated most of Soundout's articles for speedy deletion at some point. You might be interested to know that another discussion about him is in progress: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Soundout —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent1979 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

NZ on screen

I see you have removed many links to the site as spam. However, the site has been discussed at the New Zealand Wikipedians' Noticeboard and is regarded as a valuable source. I am surprised that you were not aware of the discussion as it has been linked to in each edit summary adding the links. Perhaps you did not think to check the archives.

If you believe that this discussion came to an incorrect conclusion, you are welcome to raise the matter again and seek a new consensus. In the meantime, I shall restore the links.-gadfium 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you found the discussion while I was typing the above. I will not restore the links to give you a chance to explain. Please raise the matter at an appropriate venue before continuing.-gadfium 05:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please look over WP:EL to see what valid sources really are. Everything listed on that site can be implemented into the respective articles and the site can be cited as a reference. As an external link, it does not belong. It is also done with a clear conflict of interest. The discussion itself was quite limited and I don't believe any consensus was attained. If you wish to, you can post this for discussion at wikiproject spam or wikiproject external links, which are two relevant groups for dealing with this sort of thing. Themfromspace (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject External links#NZ on Screen.-gadfium 06:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope you have not forgotten about this. If you are unable to verify the content of the website for technical reasons, then please drop your objection to the links at Wikipedia talk:External links#NZ on Screen.-gadfium 02:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful, Dirty, Rich (Lady GaGa song)

I disagree with your statement, this is about notability, and it is notable and has been verified by mulitple sources, there are many third party sources all over the net to verify it. Last Fm for example. It does comply with WP:V and WP:N, I have checked.Dance-pop (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spelling error

I have to admit that was not one of my better moments and truly a lousy thing to do. As I explained to "user:freshacconci", I tried to undo my comment but didn’t know how. Please accept my sincere apology and touche on “…should have read "you are still in college"” Jo Sponer (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Themfromspace (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dinner theater

You recently flagged this article with an Original research tag, but neglected to add a comment on the talk page identifying which section(s). Please do so. Thanks! Jaxguy24 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Youstinklmao

I am sorry, If theres an abbrev. in the name it doesnt matter, it could mean anything like look map a over. I completley disagree. Dance-pop (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My Username

Hey there Themfromspace. Thanks for the message regarding my username. I would like to keep it as I have never used it against someone and I never will. It has never offended anyone either as I have had no complaints whatsoever. In worst cases, If I had to change the name then I would change it to something more regular and plain. Please allow me to keep my username as I am not bringing harm to anyone or anything. King Regards, --Youstinklmao (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable living

Can you please explain why you keep on deleting the article on [4] that I posted. You do not seem to understand the basis of that article. I will appreciate if you please read it carefully before deleting it. It is a good starting point for quite a number of people to calculate their energy footprints.

Since you are a college student reading such articles will benefit you. It will do you whole lot of good to grow up!

218.248.79.4 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To start with, the article violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Furthermore, the link doesn't seem to add anything of value to the topic itself. External links arent meant to be used for examples of the case, but for further documentation of the subject. For example if the subject had an official webpage, it should be linked to. A minor essay on the subject shouldnt be linked to, especially one with a definite point of view. Themfromspace (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Your answer betrays your lack of understanding on this subject and is exactly what I had written in my post above. Living sustainably is a personal process and the personal example is a much more powerful mechanism to tell the readers what is possible. Not some theoretical concept which hardly makes a difference. Hence I will appreciate if you please revert the changes and include this article. There are enough links in this article for further references.218.248.79.4 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Your response indicates your lack of understanding of NPOV, one of the five pillars of this encyclopedia. I will not restore the link as it violates NPOV and WP:EL. Furthermore, the addition of it by someone personally related to it would be a conflict of interest, so please read over that guideline as well if you wrote the essay yourself or subscribe to its viewpoint. Themfromspace (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trolled

Wah wah wah :(. Jokes apart the two users (youstinklmao and dance-pop) concerned has a habit of threatening and abusing others. They faced ANIs and were blocked considerably for their abuses and no good faith. You can check the user talk pages. Quite a few users were simply disgusted by these two so i was the one who proposed an ANI. Well, so you can guess why i'm the hated most person here. Especially user Dance-pop hasnot changed his ways at all, and probably faces another block considering the circumstances. Anyways what do you propose can be done? "Legolas" (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw that an admin denied the UAA case someone filed against youstinklmao, although to me thats a clear-cut case. Thankfully, I'm not familiar with these too editors, but a mention on WP:ANI might help out the situation. From what I see we have an admittant troll, a username violation, and from what you say, a sketchy editing history. Themfromspace (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with you. I'll just drop a note to User:Hersfold and User:Efe. These two administraters are actively involved in the matter. Don't know what else can be done. "Legolas" (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I didnot expect a 1 week ban for Dance, though i expect he had it coming. A merge is fine by me, we can merge it to the album page, seeing that there's hardly any content to offer a wholesome song space, a merge is what it propose. I'll open a discussion at the talkpage. --Legolas!! (talktome) 08:30, 20 February 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) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

WP:Canvassing first sentence:

"Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."

Where is the community discussion? No community discussion, no canvassing. Messages to editors to join groups is permitted, and actively goes on. How many examples would you like? Ikip (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the footnote attached to that. "Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post." (emphasis mine) Themfromspace (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Other wikiproject do the same thing, how many examples would you like? Ikip (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not actively go around posting dozens of invitations to other deletionists, by so inviting them to give their admittedly biased opinions at AfDs. The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization (in theory). By only canvassing editors with inclusionist tendencies you are deliberately introducing bias into the AfD process. Themfromspace (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am indifferent to what you do in your free time, including contacting deletionists. As an inclusionist, I let other editors do what they like, I don't force my own values and narrow judgments on them, as many deletionist do.
If the only complaint is a vague half sentence footnote, that was added on 14 August 2007 with no discussion on the WP:Canvassing talk page, the complaint leaves a lot to be desired. I appreciate your tangible alternatives to my message, like, "The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization" and I can change the message to be more neutral. Please keep in mind, that 260 other wikiprojects do the same thing Category:WikiProject_invitation_templates. My personal favorite is Template:WPSPAM-invite-n, which you are a member of. Ikip (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
All the same, if you continue what you have been doing, by contacting the same set of people for the same ends, then I will try to establish a greater community consensus on whether your actions violate WP:CANVASS or not. Consider this your warning. :) Themfromspace (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
(refactored) Our discussions here, while a bit "warm" if not "heated", have led me to believe we both have the same ultimate goal: Improving the Project I really do appreciate your concerns for improving Wiki, as that is everyone's goal. Our personal differences aside, I would love for you to consider helping to rescue articles at WP:Article Rescue Squadron. Although "inclusionists" and "deletionists" seem at opposite poles, there may be articles up for deletion that your own areas of expertise might help save. Ikip (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a university professor and specialize in evaluating sources, the reason why I have to take exception to your deletion of our links to a public, not-for-profit television show that's aired for over 10 years on PBS affiliates and has been endorsed and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, a federal agency. If you're not going to allow our links, then you're going to have to be consistent and go through and delete all of the other links to public television. We already have high traffic on our web sites and have a 100,000 tv viewers per week. Our hope was that that we'd be making a contribution, the reason we do the shows in the first place. There are very few thirty minute interviews with many of these authors, and they are a great resource not just for fans, but for students studying their work.

Even so, you can't go through and blanket Wikipedia with your links. That is considered self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. I advise you to excersize the utmost caution when linking externally. If at all possible, cite the information that the interviewees said within the article and use the interview as a source. Avoid linking directly if at all possible. Themfromspace (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to be consistent. For example, our link was deleted from the Amy Tan article, but you've allowed one for fora.tv that is also from a university and not cited in the article. You also have a link to a radio interview with Michael Silverblatt at the end of the Thomas Keneally article, and it isn't cited within the body of the piece either. How is it different from ours? We're also from a highly respected university. Again, you need to practice these rules consistently if you want to be credible. Otherwise it appears discriminatory, which I know is not what you intend. Enough said. We're not going to pursue this. Tmillerok (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other stuff exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean it should be there. Sometimes prevention is the best cure, and taking down inappropriate external links as they are added saves us a lot of headache later on when articles become spammed up with dozens of inappropriate links. Themfromspace (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

PhCOOH

All the lists are pointing to the research groups of computational chemists and biologists who work in the field of theoretical and computational biophysics. This is an interdisciplinary field at the interface of computer simulations, structural biology and physical chemistry. Please make sure you have the appropriate expertise to be the judge!


thx

thnk u for teling m3 my edite wuz uncunstrucktive n tht i shuld refren frum doin dat in da futur. it wuz a big hellp 2 me bcuz i am nu her n i dun no how dis plaec wurks. i wil nut do dat agen bcuz it wuz wrong HEY FUCK YOU BUDDY I HATE YOU srry dat wuz wrng i gots angry Shadow symphonia (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Themfromspace (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD Merge

I appreciate your note. I looked carefully at all the arguments. Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is the strength of the arguments that is vital. Certainly, the arguments posted by senior Wikipedia Administrators carry a strong degree of clout. There certainly was not a strong discussion to delete, especially when compared to the overall weight of the keep arguments. I have done many closures of AfD's ... and had minor complaints on a couple, all of which actually held up (one even at DRV). This could have stayed with "no consensus" which would, of course, have had the same effect as "keep". However, it does not take much (at least from an unbiased POV) to weigh the arguments. If you want to have it re-opened, contact an admin. Let me recommend one such as User:Gwen Gale. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would advise against taking this AfD to DRV. I agree with the general principle, but there is limited upside. While there is support for encouraging proper process (most recently, early closes and NACs), there is limited support for enforcing it at DRV, especially if the outcome would be the same (no consensus considered the same as keep). There is also some support for weakening the NAC restrictions. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Themfromspace/Archive_2008&oldid=1142735773"