![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why? There is no article about Jim's Pranks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurstAsh13 ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked the ip for 55 hours, but I do not see any point in blocking Soulkiss2008 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The autoblock on their account would expire in 24 hours, and they could then make ip edits, and they have not edited since 2008. If you really want to pursue the matter you might take it to WP:SPI, although the age of the named account means there can be no CU. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
user "Aronsay" is reverting again??!! - I dont know if this is already vandalism? - I tried to talk to him in the discussion and at his page, but he is ignorant. Regards Plehn ( talk) 12:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! - it is ridicoulus - he also uploaded pictures in the commons, that are not selfmade. Plehn ( talk) 10:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
smithers - talk 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I added some references to Lasco Jamaica. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasco Jamaica. – Eastmain ( talk) 05:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL states All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. None of the Els I added to the Gaga articles are outside this and I see no reason to remove them. They are related to the article, provide information, but cannot be used in the article. Hence they are in the ELs. Also Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked - Everything I added is from the official recording company of the artist, so not a copyright vio. Also as per WP:ELNO, I don't see any of those links added, violating it. So thank you for your concern, but no. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
...for this. It brings a great deal of clarity to a situation that was hitherto lacking it. Steve Smith ( talk) 08:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
how's yer machine doin now? regards n-dimensional §кakkl€ 16:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM Wuh Wuz Dat 02:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as and if appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee Dougweller ( talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw this. Have you actually read WP:CANVASS? -- John ( talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi - re: that prod at Exquisite, how would you feel about a transwiki to the wiktionary definition... either that, or I'm thinking that this should be a G3 because the whole reason the definition was up there was because someone wanted to tell a girl they were purdy... What do you think? 7 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You are probably surprised to see this invitation, but your idea is by far the best one of the entire BLP RFC, (I added your idea to the top of our discussion group) so I would be foolish not to ask for your input. I am asking editors who are leaders to comment first to get this discussion going. Ikip 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments.
This barnstar is awarded to Themfromspace for his incredible idea at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which has the potential to be a compromise for all parties. Thank you so much for your contributions to this effort. Ikip 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
That is exactly what I was thinking, maybe another wikiproject (WP:new page patrol)? (I hate to create a new one just for this)
RE: "The point is that they would be moved, without redirect" exactly, and in the deletion reason, it would state where the article is.
RE: "away from the mainspace and cataloged somewhere for spot-checking." I agree fully, a new category tag would potentially take care of this.
I removed my graph, which was created and based on another editors graph, it distracted from everything and was too complex, but it envisioned all the ideas you give here.
Flatscan did some initial, valuable research on the history of your proposals, so we know the weaknesses of these proposals.
Flonight, Fram, MichaelQSchmidt and DGG have commented, I would really love if you share your ideas there. I was so pleasantly surprised to see your proposal, it gave me hope, and it actually inspired me to want to create this side project to pool ideas and see the feasibility of them. We have different views on Wikipedia, but we both agree in substance to this proposal, which is promising. Ikip 16:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please review this "projectification" proposal, to see if it is feasible. Harsh criticism is very welcome! better now than later. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community. Your opinion is especially vital as someone who has different views than me, but still proposed a kind of userfication idea.
Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
First Annual Wikiout. In order to give our vandalism, new page and spam patrollers a well deserved day off, it is suggested that all edit patrollers take a 1 day vacation from editing Wikipedia, on Thursday, April 1, 2010. (No, this is NOT an April Fools Joke) Go out, enjoy the spring weather, and give your wrist a break from using that mouse! Please pass this message along to other patrollers by adding {{subst:User:Wuhwuzdat/Wikiout}} ~~~~ to their talk pages |
Wuh Wuz Dat 23:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Themfromspace. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Swarm's talk page.
![]() |
Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. -- otherl left 14:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC) |
Hi. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Twitter links were against WP:EL. I'll go back and revert the pages I added links to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerz ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Themfromspace/Archive 4 - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 10:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Themfromspace. Just a quick not regarding the recent edit on the List of YouTube personalities page and a thank you for the instruction. Signed, Dr. Strangelove 03:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrangelove ( talk • contribs)
Please don't spoil the project by removing links others find useful. If others find them useful, then they probably are, whether you think so or not. Stikko ( talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why the link I posted was removed, when I am linking to a free schedule management software application -> When on the exact same page there are links to paid applications.. What have they done differently to merit inclusion, that my link doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.7.210 ( talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand - okay, but wouldn't having a company bio on my company be fine then? There are millions of bio's of companies on wikipedia. An example of one in the same space as my business shiftplanning is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiftboard
I wanted my business to be also on wikipedia, which is why I create the outsource job, as I'm not a writer myself, and don't know all the ins/outs to writing on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.7.210 ( talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Right - so a encyclopedic contribution with the bio of my company, written to follow the guidelines by Wikipedia would be fine then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.7.210 ( talk) 14:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested in the progress of the discussion you started at User talk:Pbhavesh. — Jeff G. ツ 06:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about changing opening picture of the Penis article to a better one? Your opinion needed. Thanks! Yestadae ( talk) 08:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
HELP. I'm new to this and couldn't figure out how to start a new post. So I think I'm putting this in the wrong post, but.... I'm wondering why you gave Sevan Aydinian a Conflict of Interest/unbalanced mark? Somebody else posted it and then I made a slight edit and it got that mark. I feel terrible because I feel like it's my fault now. How do I remove this? I went through it and verified all the facts and took out all opinions. Can you email me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, where is the link to ad? And how do i make the article normal? or is it there for the rest of eternity? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Terrible! I wish I got paid for the research and writing I've done. I probably know just as much about him as the writer. Oh well. So how can I 'clean it up'? Can you give me some guidance? Will that count as point towards me if I clean up my first-article? I figure, why not start with someone I'm passionate about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
HELLOOO??? I need help on what to do since you created this. I've cleaned up the article. There is only verifiable facts in there. Now how do I finish this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.42.124 ( talk) 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
hello..its been MONTHS and you still haven't responded. Why do people like you choose to DESTROY this website and community???
Please remove your unfair symbol off of sevan aydinian's page
User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Thought you maybe interested in this. "Whether we should ask the Foundation to simply turn on flagged revs in the form that the Germans use it." Okip 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Where do you propose one should write about a magazine called blook other than the entry 'blook' ? Isn't it inherant that an encyclopedia can have multiple definitions for the same term? BAMPFADesign ( talk) 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. It's a new template so I'm just trying to gauge people's reactions. I agree that it added very little to Roe v. Wade, but in the slightly different context of Morse v. Frederick I find that it really clarifies the presentation. It worked exceedingly well at Callisto. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 07:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi ThemFromSpace. Looks like a few edits have been made to address your COI tag on Leonard_L._Northrup_Jr.. There's an interesting response on the talk page from the author of a related bio. It looks like all references to the author(s) have been removed, and there seem to be references to at least four secondary sources (although poorly formatted).
What do you think? I know you DGAF, but in my opinion the subject seems noteworthy enough (go solar energy!) to warrant inclusion. Any suggestions on how to make the article better?
Wikitaco444 ( talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Mistake? Sole Soul ( talk) 08:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was the person who added the link to a review for the new Mumford and Sons album. I read that you removed it because it was a deadlink and that you thought there was a possibility that it was probably not a professional review. I apologise if the link I originally posted was not working, maybe I copied it wrong or perhaps the page wasn't loading correctly which sometimes happens. However, I want to assure you that the link I posted was to a professional review. Altsounds is an online magazine which has a team of staff that write professional reviews. While it is true that they encourage non staff members to express their opinions on music, the review link I posted here was written by a professional staff member. I understand that AltSounds may not have the following of a magazine like NME for example but it does have thousands of readers and it covers mostly non mainstream music. It is not a blog site for example in which one person is reviewing a particular album. If this was the case, I would completely understand the removal of the link. Mumford and sons are not a pop band so it is natural that some of the professional reviews will be conducted by slightly more eclectic magazines like Altsounds and after all, some of us readers like to read reviews from independent magazines, it allows for a more well rounded opinion. Furthermore, I made sure that there were less than 10 reviews before I posted the link. I just wanted to clarify that I am not a spammer and that I did not try to use wikipedia for promotion but because I believed and still believe the review deserves a place here. I hope now that I've explained it more clearly that you will be willing to rethink its removal. Here is the link again, in case you do decide to repost it: http://hangout.altsounds.com/reviews/115406-mumford-and-sons-sigh-no-more-album.html?highlight=mumford+sons
Many thanks for your time reading through all that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.168.102 ( talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going taking responsibility for this one at least [1]. It is a very relevant and rather indepth interview of the old-style interview type (ie. focus on the interviewee rather than the interviewer).
I'll look at the others (within the area where i can tell whether it is good or not) - if they are as good as this one - then i suspect that i will reinsert them.
Comments?-- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
hi there, I have reverted your removal of the SlowTV links on the pages Germaine Greer and Anna Funder. I understand why you have removed the links as it is clearly linkspamming by one particular editor, but some of these links actually add value to the articles you have removed them from. I had never heard of SlowTV until you removed the links, but looking at the site it seems to hold a really good collection of videos of Australian intellectuals and authors speaking about interesting and relevant topics. They should not be removed from pages just because they are linkspam - you need to look at them to see whether they actually are valuable for the article. Those are my thoughts on the issue. I would be interested in your response. Best wishes. Jenafalt ( talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I think the Friends of Lake Woodruff is a nonprofit organization, and not necessarily spam. There are ELs to Friends of the Everglades and some conversation organizations on the Everglades page. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Little Typo on your user page Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't really understand what you did with this article, I guess you know that a history cleanup of the article is necessary in order to remove the copyvio, right?-- Kimdime ( talk) 22:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
April 11, 2010
Time: 12 pm
Location:
Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City,
Philadelphia
Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.
Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you'd commented recently on additions to the protected Martin Heidegger article. I'd appreciate your opinion on the following as a replacement for the last sentence of the lead section, and particularly whether you think it might help to resolve the edit-war. I'd like to avoid adding to the mess on the article's talk page.
However, Heidegger remains controversial due to his political views, and membership of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (abbrev. Nazi Party) from 1933 to 1945.
In my view, the above should render it a moot point whether 'Nazi' and/or 'National Socialist' are then used elsewhere in the text. I don't believe that the edit-war will be resolved by range blocks, bans or by protecting articles. Subsequently, I'd like to find a compromise between the two warring factions that's nonetheless balanced and accurate. I'm familiar with a number of politically and socially controversial philosophers, and avoiding terms such as 'Nazi' for "emotive" reasons, which I think was the original explanation given for its removal, and the ensuing war, is not a balanced or valid way of reporting them. If I can make any progress, I'll then make a suggestion on the article's talk page and hopefully we end this. Thanks! Mephistophelian ( talk ● contributions) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This is to notify you that some articles you PROD2ed have been contested by someone writing into OTRS. They are:
In accordance with PROD policy, they have been undeleted. You may wish to nominate them for AFD. Please note that if you reply and want me to see your reply, you will need to leave it on my talk page as I am not watching this page. Stifle ( talk) 09:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
After weeks of trying to clear it with Rod, the article IS cleared up. However, you'd have to remove the conflict of interest title you placed on the article. There is no evidence of direct connections and over 20 verified links. The 'unbalanced' status has already been cleared. We just need you to remove the Conflict of Interest and the article will be fully clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You may actually be technically correct, but I removed a PROD on this which was headlined PROPOSED FOR DELETION ONLY APPLIES TO ARTICLES (or something to that effect). When I changed to the CSD-A10 there was no such warning. Given that this essay is an exact duplicate of another essay seems to suggest that CSD-A10 is valid rationale to delete it. Absent a PROD or CSD, I don't think an AfD (which is the only other alternative) is appropriate. My inclination is that it's deletion via CSD-A10 won't break WP. Maybe someone smarter than us will enlighten us otherwise! or Not!-- Mike Cline ( talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Themfromspace.
You seem like an experienced user, so if you'd like, I'd be happy to nominate you to administrator! Regards, --
The High
Fin
Sperm
Whale
19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I endorsed your prod of Top Ten Spiderman Villains. I wish they had a WP:CSD for this.-- mono 05:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
re: Alexander Fiske-Harrison You might want to look at, for example, the 10,000-word profile of him in The Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.52.15 ( talk) 13:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Please explain to me how Sports Arbitrage Guide is not relvent to the article on Betting Arbitrage? It provides details about betting arbitrage well above and beyond that possible in the betting arbitrage article, and does not conflict with any of the rules stated in wikipedia article editing. It is an independant free information resource on precisely the topic that the article is about.
If you look at the article on Arbitrage, you find links to Arbitrage related articles - why not in betting arbitrage? Why is it suddenly SPAM?
The fact is, only ONE person has been removing the link repeatedly, and has never once justified his reason for doing so, other than a vague reference to the guidelines, and not actually explaining what guideline the link crosses.
please explain this to me... John0912 ( talk) 08:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Them, have a look at these contributions; you are involved because, apparently, you are crazy. ;) Drmies ( talk) 05:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Themfromspace I am the original poster of the Buy Here Pay Here page to which you have made edits. I work for an auto dealership that owns a buy here pay here company. This is my first time making a Wikipedia page. Obviously I was a little overzealous with some of the things I posted. We use and especially like autopalonline dot com software, but I don't necessarily need a reference to it on the page. I would like some specific references if possible, from what I have read outside links are discouraged in the article. I would also like to make the article as good as it can be. What would you recommend I do to improve this article? I have read a fair amount about wikipedia posting since I created the page, but I have very little practical wikipedia experience.
Thanks ~Amorrise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amorrise ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am a manager at a local grocery store in Deale, MD. On Monday 4/19/2010 I was doing so research and found that our store, Deale FoodRite, the only full service grocery store in Deale, was not listed in the Deale, MD page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deale,_Maryland. I added an external link to our website under the Organizations section, where several other local businesses and associations were listed. Additionally, since our area of Anne Arundel county Maryland is very rural, I also added an Organization link to the several other neighboring communities that we serve.
Today 4/21/2010 I found the links had been removed. The chat helper told me that you were the user who deleted it. I don't understand why. We are the only full service grocery store in our rural community. We serve most of the households in the area as well as the seasonal boaters who visit during the summer months and dock at local marinas.
I have reviewed the 2 pages you listed at the top of the page regarding spam, and I don't believe that I violated the policy. If simply adding the links to the Deale, MD page and the half dozen neighboring towns does constitute spam then I will gladly only post to the Deale, MD page.
I thank you in advance for your prompt reply. 71.246.83.219 ( talk)Deale FoodRite —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC).
I've responded at the talk page, in order to keep the conversation focused in one place. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Community_High_School_Tehran,_Iran&action=history
please view discussion of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iohannes_Animosus#Community_School_removal_of_external_links
You may be interested. Xenicon ( talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theatrical_film_production_companies to follow the same format as the distributors page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Theatrical_Film_Companies? It is a lot of work and I would appreciate your help.
I wanted to thank you for deleting all the external waste on the Rory Gallagher article. Noticing your efforts to curtail the zillions of new BLP articles, I was surprised! Happy, delighted! I've never involved myself in any community discussions in these past years-- probably wouldn't know how or where to fit myself in-- but it's driving me crazy that there has been some semblance of "status" attached to editors who start new articles. Never mind adding references or (God forbid) bringing them beyond Stub status! Thank you for assisting in the fight to trim the BLP articles that do not reflect the goal of a reputable encyclopedia on the web! -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 08:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith: Why doesn't WiZiQ meet the requirements ( WP:N and WP:WEB) but Edufire does and Myngle does? Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your comment. Crum375 added another possible version (C), after you expressed support for version B when it was the only change mentioned. Version C is essentially the part following the first sentence of versions A and B. Please check the versions again and if you still prefer version B, could you indicate that with Version B in your comment, or indicate any other version that you prefer. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that if a link is to http://www.speedwayresearcher.org.uk/ then it should be remove but if link is to a specific page relating to the article then it should stay ie http://www.speedwayresearcher.org.uk/harringay.html. I have in the past removed speedwayresearcher from various speedway articles but not removed links to specific pages. Would be interested in your comments. I have no connection with the site. Regards -- palmiped | Talk 11:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You replied to my question about posting interviews as external links and you stated that interviews are welcome but spamming is not and that is why you removed my links. Every link I posted was to an interview with the subject of the article in which it was posted, I don't understand why you would consider this as spam. I have seen plenty of Wikipedia articles that include external links to interviews, so why remove the ones that I posted?
Larynx1982 ( talk) 14:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I replied to your views over my removed links @ my talk page. Kindly respond their. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshalthakur ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You edited Tullow's page, a town in Co. Carlow Ireland, removing reference to a not for profit website which offers vital weather information. This station has been reviewed by local and National media and is not for profit in fact it costs the site owner a lot of money to provide the service.
Please don't remove the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.158.121 ( talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It isn't promotion it's providing information about a not for profit service that doesn't have anything to gain, it's factual information with no benefit to anyone only those who use the site?
Hello,Themfromspace, Several days ago, I added Compare++ in Comparison of file comparison tools, but I am sorry that it may break some rules so that it is removed by you. Now, I wrote an article about Compare++'s features in page Compare++ and I think it will be useful for readers, especially for those programmers who are seeking a code comparison tool which can detect and report function changes and use structured comparison engine. Any suggestion is appreciated. Thanks, Liuxin4335 ( talk) 07:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Themfromspace - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.
I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.
Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.
Thank you! 7 23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You wrote "rvt paid promo" in the Edit Summary for this edit. Please share any evidence of paid promotion. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi themfromspace, I added an external link on the following Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_XM on 03/12/07. The link was to this site http://club-xm.com/forum2/index.php which is a non-profit site for Citroen XM enthusiasts and owners. In the intervening time others have added a couple of more links related to the Citroen XM. In some cases a mod has edited the syntax of the link to correct it. My link survived until 18/04/09 when someone edited it to redirect it to their own site. I don't know why they did that. I did not notice the change until 27/04/10 (its not something I check every day). I added the above link back in to the Wiki page without deleting the other persons link and it was immediately flagged by user TYP932 as a "linkfarm". I am fairly illiterate when it comes to the etiquette and syntax of Wikipedia and did not understand what this meant. I now understand that it is some kind of flag to suggest that there are too many links(I think).
I see, on 03/06/10, you edited the external links section and deleted my link leaving others which had only just been added. I have looked at the pages you suggest for reasons why my link may have been deleted. The only one I can see which applies is the link to a site requiring membership. I would rather not have to use membership but it is the only anti-spam measure I know. Allowing posts without membership is simply an invitation to every spammer on the planet to deface your site. There is no membership fee. It is free. Membership is only required to post. No membership is required to read or search. Due to the spamming problem, membership of this type must represent the greatest number of forum type sites on the web. Club-XM is dedicated to owners and enthusiasts of the car. It has the In this regard I feel it is entirely relevant to the article. In deed there are still two links remaining there today for other owners clubs.
May I ask why you deleted the external link to my site? Could you please explain the legitimacy of one link compared to another for ostensibly the same purpose? Could you also confirm if it would be acceptable to put the link back on? 81.136.210.184 ( talk) 14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Norrienoz
Per your suggestion, I've nominated for deletion. I'll have a look over Penguins in popular culture, but I'm not sure that it warrants the same treatment. Thanks. Claritas § 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
...is there a way to compromise between the POVs of Hobit and j04n. I think there is, and I think one of the other proposals nailed it, suggesting that the requirement for removing a BLPPROD not be the addition of a reliable source (which, as Hobit notes, is not a bright-line test), but instead the addition of a source which is not user-generated (myspace, facebook, home page of an artist being profiled, etc.). The latter restriction is narrower and, in my opinon, cleaner. Just a thought. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated it for speedy deletion because there are only two or three lines written in it.If I've done anything wrong, then please let me know. Best $Max Viwe$ ( talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was impressed by your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (3rd nomination). Would you consider adding your views to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Notability of lists? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 08:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
He is back:
I recommend his account be close and his website be added to the list of blocked websites.
Thanks. > Best O Fortuna ( talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted a link on the DeLand, Florida article. (No, I didn't add it so my dog is not in this fight.)
I was trying to figure out why you deleted the link. I thought it provided additional information about DeLand without adding a long list of information to the article itself.
I read the External Links article, and didn't see the reason you deleted the link, so could you please explain it to me?
(I watch for changes on the DeLand, Florida article because I live there and want to revert vandalism when it happens. I probably should look for a better life.) -- Fredrik Coulter ( talk) 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)