User talk:Themfromspace/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Themfromspace. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Dixieland recording

Your version of the recording of Dixie on wikipedia is being used by the BBC in their current series "The autobiography of Mark Twain." High praise indeed. Good Work! See http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vs4k2/Book_of_the_Week_Autobiography_of_Mark_Twain_Episode_3/ 93.107.75.173 (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, cool! ThemFromSpace 20:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Room Tribute

How so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.45.41 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

Hi,

Sorry to ask a random question, but I see that you've got a "no to flagged revisions" banner on your user page. Any particular reason? In my experience of working with quality-over-quantity editors I haven't found that many opposed. Just curious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I believe flagged revisions goes against our guiding principle that "anyone can edit". See Jimbo's statement of principles: "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

While we should strive for the highest quality in our articles, we can't cut any corners in doing so. This doesn't mean we shouldn't watch our pages with scrutiny and quickly remove edits which go against our policies, but it does mean that there should be no barriers to editing, such as letting an elite caste of editors approve the edits of the lowly minions. This is censorship, (in its original meaning, not as we interpret it in WP:CENSOR).

The one thing we are in dire need of is more editors, and editors are enticed to join when they see that their work has an immediate impact here. I predict less people will join if they would have to submit their work to the censors for approval. I know I probably wouldn't have stuck around very long if my first edits here (removing self-promotional linkspam) didn't update the page right away. It's this feeling of open editing, the idea that you can change pages immediately, that attacts new editors and lures them into our community

Reviewing recent flagged edits as part of the trial bolsters this opinion. Too often I feel as if I'm acting as a censor for our material, especially in borderline cases where I know some editors would roll back the edit while others would let it pass. My experience with full flagged revisions on the German Wikipedia as an IP was less than stellar as well. Often my edit would sit unnoticed for a full week, even if it was something as simple (and important!) as removing personal contact information. ThemFromSpace 18:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said. This is pretty much how I feel as well. :) Reyk _YO! 05:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

External links at Dorothy Day

Feel free to join the conversation Talk:Dorothy_Day#External_links if you would like to more fully explain your rationale for removing external links at Dorothy Day.Active Banana (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reasoning for posting of now deleted entries

Hi,

I am contacting you in respect to the deletion you have done on my additions to the Keywords “Private Banking” and “Wealth Management” and would appreciate if you could give me some additional information on the reasoning.

I think it would be helpful to outline why I think it would be beneficial for the Wikipedia user to find the entries I have made for instance for “Private Banking”:

1) At the top of the article on "Private Banking" citation and footnotes are specifically requested. What I have done is to add a footnote to the existing information “Historically private banking has been viewed as very exclusive, only catering for high net worth individuals with liquidity over $2 million, although it is now possible to open some private bank accounts with as little as $250,000 for private investors.” to an recent and neutral article on the minimum entry levels for private banking, hereby providing a reference and allowing the reader to get more and up-to-date infos .

2) As a reference on the bottom I have added a link to the directory of Private Banking Providers of MyPrivateBanking.com. As I see it the references so far have given information on the Top 10 providers, but I think it will be helpful for interested reader to have access to information on the hundreds of other providers. The same logic applies for me for the similar link I have posted for “Wealth Management”

3) “Private Banking” provides a link to Private Banking International. A fine publication on news for Private Banking from the industry perspective. (However, ad- and subscriber financed and for a substantial part of the articles a paid log-in is required). So far no link is existing on information on Private Banking respectively Wealth Management from the clients perspective. Please check our site MyPrivateBanking.com. It offers a lot of free news and research on Private Banking from the clients perspective. It is independent, research focused and takes to ads from Private Banking providers and helps the ones interested to gain transparency and neutral insights.

On myself: I am Research Director of MyPrivateBanking Research and while I am a long-term “passive” user of Wikipedia these were indeed my first entries, motivated by the how I find rather out-of-date and incompleted information on “Private Banking” and “Wealth Management”.

MyPrivateBanking is a fully independent Research Company on the global Private Banking and Wealth Management markets. We have a very high standard on our data collection and analysis and a strong code of conduct. I guarantee that my aim is not to promote any specific service, but to enhance transparency and know-how about a rather complex and opaque market. The links on MyPrivateBanking were not intended to just increase hits on MyPrivateBanking.com (in particular since this is an add-free site), but to provide Wikipedia users with additional and independent information on Private Banking and Wealth Management. And please check yourself: There are no other site in the internet with the same depth of independent and freely available research on Private Banking and Wealth Management topics.

I would appreciate if you would consider my points and re-evaluate your decision to delete my entries for the sake of more and better information for Wikiuser interested in the above mentioned keywords.

Best regards from Switzerland,

Christian Nolterieke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.48.123 (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This link fails our external link guidelines as it is not about the subject of the articles to which it has been added and doesn't provide any encyclopedic content that couldn't be written into the articles it is posted on. Also the way you just described it is very promotional, so please read over our policy on spamming as well as our conflict of interest guidelines and policy that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. ThemFromSpace 19:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of the policies and would appreciate if you could explain your specific reasoning for not accepting any of my arguments listed above instead of what looks like a copy-paste feedback. In particular I am curious why you rather keep entries without a citation instead of accepting a proper reference and why for instance a link to only semi-public site based on subscriber-fees and advertising is accepted) and one to a free research site not. I am looking forward to your argumentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.91.159 (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again please look over our external link guidelines to see why this site isn't appropriate for our external links sections. We typically only link to material that offers an encyclopedic understanding of our subjects in a way that cannot be written into our articles, for example we often link to copyrighted text and photos if we are unable to incorporate them into our articles and we feel the readers are missing something without them. Also, the pages you tried to link to as references, such as this aren't appropriate for referencing purposes because they don't appear to be reliable sources. Unless you can show how myprivatebanking is respected in its field and considered by others to be reliable, we shouldn't link to it. We do this because anybody can publish anything on the internet and without some sort of guideline on what material is acceptable for references we could have all sorts of incorrect material be "referenced" in here. I hope this helps. ThemFromSpace 22:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the clarification. I fully understand that you have to verify the trustworthiness of a source before allowing links to it. The founders of MyPrivateBanking have worked in senior research and management positions for the leading, independent IT-Strategy Research company Forrester Research, where also followed very strict guidelines in respect to sources and un-biased research. We enforce the same code of conduct for myprivatebanking.com. I am glad I can prove that our research is highly respected and considered reliable by industry experts by the manifold articles on and references of our research in the worlds leading media such as Bloomberg, Businessweek, Dow Jones Financial News and also all the Top-Media in the German speaking countries auch as Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine. We are also regulary quoted in industry specific media such a Wealthbriefing, Private Banker International, Banking Business Review and Finews and the leading journalists in our field are frequently calling us to get our opinion on Wealth Management/Private Banking developments. Please be so kind to check the coverage of myprivatebanking in the media on our website http://www.myprivatebanking.com/MEDIA/in-the-media/ where we have links to a selection of articles written on our research published by the media mentioned above. We also have a permanent link to our website in the "What we are reading"-Section of the Financial Times Blog http://blogs.ft.com/ftfmblog/. Again, I appreciate your work and understand that you have to be critical about all edits done, but hope that our discussion and my clarification are helpful to show that myprivatebanking.com is an independent, reliable and research-driven information source. I do not intend to "spam", but to enhance the quality of the content on topics that I feel can be improved by giving unbiased and competent additional information (BTW: All research is written/edited by native English speakers - so without the mistakes I still have when writting in english ;-). Thanks, Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.46.243 (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Could you check the links I posted above to verify the many citations we get in the top media and hereby the credibility our research has in the private banking/wealth management field ? I hope these independent testimonials answer your concern regarding the respectation and reliability of myprivatebanking and allow you to accept our edits in Wikipedia. Thanks, Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.30.254 (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you can go ahead and link there as long as the links are directly relevant to the articles they are in and meet our guidelines on when to link externally and when not to . It is still preferable to incorporate material from your website into our articles and cite the website as a source than to just link externally. See our page on citing sources for information on how to do this. But if a link to your cite helps the encyclopedia, by all means go right ahead. ThemFromSpace 16:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that you took the time to review the "case". I assure you that I will follow the guidelines and focus on incorporating relevant and unbiased information. I now have also created an account "ChrisNolte01". Best, Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisNolte01 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Syslog all lang.

I do not understand why my links you regularly cleaned! Another project is why one can be placed with external references ???!!! I have the same project as other, and no advertising is not here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Курков Сергей (talk • contribs) 11:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look over our page on linkspamming. When a user is here for no purpose other than to systematically add external links, especially links that do not meet our external links guidelines, his contributions are treated as spam and reverted. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising and promotion. Your link fails to add any encyclopedic relevance to the articles to the 20 + articles in over half a dozen languages to which it has recently been added, as it only promotes the sale of a nonfree program which isn't directly related to the subject of the article. If this link continues to be spammed across different Wikipedias I may have to request that it be blacklisted, which would technically prevent its inclusion on any Wikimedia wiki. ThemFromSpace 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, yes! I forgot - Encyclopedia of all corruptible. That is not to remove references to any money you pay. Otherwise I can not call it by another, when other projects place their paid programs. All of you understand ... can not answer .... It's discrimination. You do not love that Russian? Or are you a racist? ...Курков Сергей (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusing people of being racist and of being biased probably isn't the best way to get them to see your point of view. Themfromspace has explained why they removed your links, you haven't attempted to explain why they should be included. Please remain civil in the future. Smartse (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it not discrimination?? All right. Explain why these products should be there (SL4NT, Syslog Watcher, NetDecision LogVision, MonitorWare Agent, WinSyslog, Kiwi, etc. )!!!!??? It's the same commercial products as well as mine. They are placing their products to the one-way t get the same "big" backlinks as I do. So tell me why they are here freely posted and I "cut" all the links. But the answer here is very simple - they (ie you) do not like Russian. My product is not worse than they have in places, yes, and also qualitatively different.Курков Сергей (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No it's not discrimination. Looking at the syslog article (I assume this is the article you are talking about) there don't seem to be any links to any products and this is the way it should be. TFS seems to have spotted you repeatedly adding links which as you admit is to a site that you run and are trying to promote. Here we consider it spamming, regardless of what language it is written in. If there are articles in other languages with links to products then you should probably remove them - using their presence as a reason to include yours isn't a good argument - two wrongs don't make a right. Smartse (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguments you do not, really nothing you answered me. Shortcuts have the right to exist. You have no reason to remove them. If you delete them, then delete the references to other products. If you are going permanently delete - I will be forced to draw this to the attention of the public. How do you then can be called the free encyclopedia? I repeat once again - this is not spam, it's a reference on the article.194.220.84.246 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested that this link be globally blacklisted since you haven't gotten the hint that when multiple editors remove the link on multiple Wikipedias, it's not welcome. Calling names and issuing threats didn't make matters any better. ThemFromSpace 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mehmet ildan

A tag has been placed on Mehmet ildan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 05:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Third party website request

Nice job finding that. How did you do it? Also, I have brought this matter to the attention of the noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Concern:_Request_for_fake_third-party_websites — Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's easy, just search for "Wikipedia" on freelance sites such as that and you'll get just about every good hit they offer. Feel free to email me if you wish to know more. ThemFromSpace 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-Spam Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Thank you for all the work you do to fight spam and for taking the initiative of creating Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. You continue to remove spam and take part of discussions in a civil manner regardless of the sometimes tiresome and not always pleasant messages from editors with conflict of interest and/or people using Wikipedia as a platform for advertisement. Thanks! jonkerz♠ 11:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! ThemFromSpace 08:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

'Final Warning'

Hello Themfromspace, On July 28, 2010 I received a message from you on my Talk about Disruptive Edits. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes.

I am confused by your actions because I was not trying to self promote with my additions to any Wiki page. Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible. JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains a digital copy of its Bible translation. Additionally, you removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, yet other external sites like: Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikipedia pages concerning the Bible.

Can you please clarify why these organizations are permitted to post external links, and I am not? Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look over our page entitled "Other stuff exists" which was created to address this issue. The short answer is that inappropriate content that already exists on here is not an excuse to post more inappropriate content. If any of these links are inappropriate they will be removed in the future. Please also look over our page on linkspamming and our policy that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion since all of your edits deal with the placement of this link. This behaviour isn't acceptable and you will probably be blocked from editing if you continue to place inappropriate links to sales pages such as you did here. ThemFromSpace 14:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I respect Wikipedia and I don't want to be a spammer. Would you find it appropriate to include a Google Preview link such as, http://books.google.com/books?id=e-P0N5g7Go4C&lpg=PP1&dq=biblical%20women%20unbound&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false ? Thanks, Rrstern25 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Explain

You removed a link to a forum that I added to the Involuntary celibacy page. Why? Fschmidt2 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not link to forum sites unless the article is specifically about a specific forum. See WP:ELNO point 10. ThemFromSpace 03:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then what about the "Love-shy.com" link on Love-shyness which is basically a forum? Why is that allowed? Fschmidt2 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Just because "other stuff exists" doesn't mean it's permitted. I went ahead and removed that link as well. ThemFromSpace 04:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong "Conflict of Interest" flag

Hello, I understand your reason for deletion based on a "lack of verifiable references". However, i believe your assumption that this project was paid for (and hence in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest law) is unfortunately wrong. I took a look at the project on Elance which you referenced and i must point out to you that although the project DOES exist, it hasn't been awarded to anyone and as such cannot rightfully be assumed to be responsible for my post.

More importantly, I am NOT amongst the people currently bidding for the project to which you alluded. I possess a working profile on Elance (also by the name of Carlang) but i do NOT have any interest or aspirations for the job. Feel free to monitor the pages.

Pending your reply on the subject,I will work on resolving the undoubtedly important issues of refereces as mentioned by you. Carlang (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there are a lot of deceptive tricks that people pull on elance and one of them is that people post jobs on the site and continue them offsite for privacy reasons. The fact of the matter is that the article's subject wants a promotional article created about him and several days later *poof* one appears. That's not a coincidence. ThemFromSpace 14:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Again, like i earlier said, i agree with your decisions to have the article deleted. I also agree that the emergence of the Wikipedia article so soon after the referenced Elance post does appear to far a stretch. I must however stress that the my reasons for creating the article were not from a financial view point. Still, since i profit little from the creation or deletion of the article, i am willing to allow permit its deletion as requested by you. Future contributions by me will be made in accordance to the rules within which wikipedia is bound.

Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing trivial mentions

I saw the Hudsucker Proxy by the Coen brothers recently, and found it interesting that the hula hoop was featured in there as a major plot device. I thought someone else might find that interesting too so I took a few minutes and added a couple of lines to the hula hoop "In popular culture" section. You reverted the change as a "trivial mention". This would be fair, except that (a) we are talking about the hula hoop, not health care policy, (b) Coen brothers movies are part of popular culture and (c) one of the points you saw not fit to revert was that Alvin and the Chipmunks had a song about it. It's not a big deal, but I thought I made a meaningful contribution and the revert was unnecessary. It was definitely inconsistent. I would discourage you from doing these in the future, since no one will add content if a few people just go around removing it after a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.192.10 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists and Notability

There is a discussion at WT:N#Lists and Notability which may be of interest to you given our an earlier discussion you participated in. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Urgently needed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists: a reliable third party defintion for a list or listacle. Can you help? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been paying attention to the discussions on that page (I commented a bit yesterday). I've been very busy lately but I might look it over again later tonight if I have some time. Also please heed our canvassing guidelines since I'm not a neutral party here. ThemFromSpace 18:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Message at my talk page

[Replacing talkback template with a different note]. Not really sure why you don't like talkback templates, but that's alright. I've responded at my talk page. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Internet church uncalled for... its not promotional just informational

I noticed the post you made to my page... the Internet church article is actual a merged article from previously information already on Wikipedia. The references sited were either already there or found by me during the research period... I only merged the articles and added a few more sources that confirm the "Internet church" part of the article. I left the note you made up there, but the fact that you jumped to condemn an article just because I had something to do with it I think shows your leave of bias. You can claim I have a conflict of interest when concerning my own page but not on some random topic. But either way I know if something will be on Wikipedia it must follow the rules verified by experts in those fields, news and book publications, and other third parties. So don't start harassing me... --Yeshiyah (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the references again, it is clear that you were paid to include them, which goes against our conflict of interest guidelines. ThemFromSpace 20:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey stop trying to get into an editing war with me... those links at the bottom are there for a reason... they are in part references to things stated within the article... most of which were already here before I made any changes to the page... So stop removing sources from the article... that's called vandalism on Wikipedia.. Plus, I find it funny that you keep touching this one part on the Online Church section as if it's the only thing you think I'm focused on... not everything is about self-promotion... this page is just what I could find on the topic of internet churches... all merged into one page... you keep talking conflict of interest but its non reliant on a subject like this... I make or change pages based on the need to add information to them... not bias.. the way are responding is bias. In fact most pages on wikipedia reference back to some person's site or book or article... are they all promotion or legitimate references under their subject matters? I have no problem if you remove references that are not related to the subject or better yet if you added better sources to help build the page.... but DO NOT VANDALIZE this page anymore! And do your homework a little better because you have no idea what my goals are...Yeshiyah (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fictional magic users

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional magic users, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comment

Regarding the elance.com request you found, could you please comment here? Thank you Hekerui (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please engage me on my talk page

TFS – This is about the nth time you’ve chosen to give me personal advice on a discussion page related to some topic or another. I think it would be far more appropriate if you would do so on my talk page instead of on a discussion page for the primary reason that any attempt to engage on whatever advice you are giving would be inappropriate for that discussion. The DRV on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 14 is a perfect example. You not only violated this aspect of the DRV guidelineListings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed, any response that I would have made would have done the same by endorsing your violation.

Now, I don’t begrudge you providing me advice, it should just be done on my talk page instead of in the middle of a discussion where my ability to engage is limited by my desire not to disrupt the discussion with superfluous debate.

I would question why you’ve chosen to give me advice on the discussion page when you’ve apparently chosen to give Gavin advice on his rather obvious canvassing of other editors (you included) on his talk page instead of calling him out on the RFC itself.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is nothing personal, I'm sorry if you've been taking it the wrong way. In these instances I was trying to minimize the amount of conversations about the particular issue. If a conversation has already started I prefer to contribute to it at its original location rather than opening multiple threads which could complicate the matter. So if an editor starts up a topic and I feel its done disingenuously, I will usually comment on the process in the already-opened thread rather than starting a new one. In my defense with the DRV, you do clearly have a bias (involvement) in list discussions, as Gavin and I do as well. Closing discussions such as this is against WP:INVOLVED and mentioning a closer's involved status is proper to do at WP:DRV as it can be valid argument to overturn a decision. I'm sure you would object (as I would as well) to Gavin closing list discussions were he to already have the sysop flag, due to statements he has made in the past regarding lists. I will note your request and contact you directly the next time I have advice for you regarding involvement, participation, or anything else dealing with behaviour. ThemFromSpace 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

SpicyNodes

Thank you for your review of the SpicyNodes page. I have posted a reply to your "coi" and "notability" tags, and made some minor improvements to the article, and would appreciate if you could please look at my replies and let me know if they satisfy your concerns. Also, while I understand your removal of SpicyNodes from Debategraph, I think that you should either restore it as an example for Radial tree or else remove the Mind Manager and Mind Mapper links. SpicyNodes is objectively a radial tree; but the other two are not. The links were intended to provide an illustration of the concept in use. Wxidea (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've formally proposed a merge, Wxidea has added a lot more references, but none of them are enough do demonstrate notability, even though there is a whole section on why it is supposedly notable. Your opinion would be appreciated. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the merge already took place, which is fine by me. ThemFromSpace 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Themfromspace, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You inspired this RFC

Our discussions inspired this RFC in which I hope to bring greater clarity to our mutual (as well as the communities') interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And you inspired this thanks note:)

Thanks for the lovely support vote in my RfA ThemfromSpace... appreciated it tons. Sincerely. Wifione _.......^Leave a message 08:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lists & Notability

I think I have nailed down my thoughts on this issue: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists#Lists & Notability: Lessons learnt from the RFC. Any comments? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to participate

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Victorian state election, 2014

Canada...? Timeshift (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry.. Australia ;) That's what I get for skimming. ThemFromSpace 04:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

George Pocheptsov

I think you were right tagging this article. I added an AfD. Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pocheptsov is appreciated. —bender235 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At first glance he looks as if he may be notable, although it is hard to tell for sure with the promotional tone. I'll look into this a bit more and perhaps comment at the AfD. ThemFromSpace 03:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

SUNY Orange Question

Quick question on the removal of the facebook link:

I have read the WP:ELNO - however the first sentence of that states: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:"

If the facebook page is an official facebook page for the college, then is it then exempt? Socommteam (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I actually responded to this question in advance on the talk page of the user who kept adding it. I said that we usually try to limit the number of "official" pages presented in our articles, and facebook pages are one of those we seek to avoid unless there is nothing better we can find. As there already is a better "official" website on this article, the facebook link (which doesn't really provide much encyclopedic value) doesn't belong. We can't host every website which is affiliated with the subjects of our articles, so we choose the ones that are most relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. ThemFromSpace 05:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Themfromspace. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 09:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IdeaConnection

Hi TFS , you nominated this article for deletion, but it has now been recreated. I think it is significantly similar, but my request for deletion under WP:CSD#G4 was declined. I'm unsure whether to renominate it as one source may just about provide notability. Could you possibly drop by the talk page if you have a minute to discuss the best course of action? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the admin's declining reason was one I never saw before. I find it puzzling that an admin can declare a very recent AfD to be not good enough due to limited participation. Looking over the references section in the article, I'm still having a hard time seeing notability in the name-drops and blog mentions provided. ThemFromSpace 02:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sent to Afd again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IdeaConnection (2nd nomination). ThemFromSpace 03:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, puzzled me a bit too, but as it was tagged for ~ a day before it was declined, I imagine that other admins also looked at it but didn't do anything. Seems like a waste of time having another AfD so soon, but so be it. SmartSE (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Sound Candidates

As someone who has nominated or commented on one of the current candidates, a couple of which are getting very old, you are invited to comment at this discussion to see if we can tidy up the FSC page before Christmas (and / or one or more of the nominations). Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 19:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the applause on the "Hallelujah" chorus; it's now been promoted, as you may have seen. Now that you've revealed yourself as someone who can edit sound files (!) do you think that File:Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau.ogg can be improved any further, or is it about as good as we can expect? (Original file is here, for comparison) Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 17:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a look over that file and played around with it in Audition, but I couldn't get very far. For one thing, it's hard working with a copy thats already had noise reduction applied to it (as the original copy that you linked me to did). For another, age of the recording coupled with its wear and the fact that its only a vocalist with accompaniment make that "swish" sound all but impossible to remove. The more I remove the background noise, the more prominent the remaining noise is and the more the music sounds distorted. For these really old recordings I would try to be as gentle as possible with any additional noise reduction. You can't expect a 110 year old record sound pristine, after all. Aesthetically speaking, that recording you found is absolutely beautiful. I'm sure it would be nearly impossible to find a good quality replacement copy if you wanted to make your own transfer. ThemFromSpace 18:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Bencherlite^Talk 18:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Whistleblower page - removal of external links

You have removed a substantial number of external links from the above page, including a link to my webpage 'Advice to whistleblowers' at http://www.happywarrior.org/widows/allabout.htm. May I ask what qualifications or experience you have in relation to whistleblowing? If you have no expertise in this area on what basis do you claim to be qualified to assess whether external links should be included? Can you also explain why you removed the link to my page when the other 99 editors who watch the whistleblower page (if my reading is correct) have left it there for months and given that my page does actually gives practical and useful advice from an actual whistleblower which I have not seen elsewhere on the web? If some of the things revealed there are uncomfortable they are nonetheless true, so if an external link is useful, factual and provides information not available elsewhere why do you exclude it? I am a real whistleblower who sacrificed his career for the truth and who is trying to help other whistleblowers. Who are you and who are you trying to help? You can E-Mail me at <-redacted-> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.125.185 (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please look over our guidelines for external links, especially the section on links to avoid. The link you placed doesn't meet points 1 and 4, as well as WP:ELPOV, the directive that we should avoid links with an emphasis on a particular point of view. Please also see our conflict of interest guidelines which explain why it is best for you not to link to a sites you are affiliated with on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia's purpose is not to give advice, legal or other. This is an encyclopedia, not a legal counsel or a how-to guide.

That I was the first to remove the linkfarm was a shame, but these links quite clearly do not belong on the page, as per the guidelines I mentioned above. ThemFromSpace 11:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain in your own words why you consider that my page does not meet the guidelines. It is evasive and unhelpful to simply say 'See the policy'. If you make a decision that my page does not meet the policy it is for you to explain your reasons. You mention points 1 and 4 but my page is unique and it does not promote a particular website; it has links to websites by way of providing background or further information.

And you still have not explained what qualifications or experience you have in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.125.185 (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, your page is highly opinionated and doesn't belong as an appendix to a neutral encyclopedia Your page approaches the subject with a distinct set of opinions and provides advice based on your own personal values. It is not professional for us to link to such a biased appraisal of the issue. Don't get me wrong.. I personally agree with what you wrote in the site. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox, we don't publish or promote sets of opinions.

And on Wikipedia, we need no sets of qualifications to edit here. The only thing we need is a basic grasp of the content as well as an understanding of our editing policy. ThemFromSpace 13:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You will accept, I hope, that in ALL published encyclopedias responsibility for editing of particular pages is given only to subject experts (of which, in relation to whistleblowing, I am one and you are not one). Presumably, you are right and they are all wrong, as are the 99 other editors of the whistleblower page who left the links in. Presumably also you, on a page about Troy, would have excluded a link to a page by Heinrich Schliemann on the basis that it was only his OPINION that his excavations had revealed the ancient city of that name - thus excluding one of the greatest historical finds ever. You see, they may be my opinions but even you agree that they are right. I think the only thing to do is to refer this matter to mediation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.125.185 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You can ask about it on the external links noticeboard. Just give the link and ask if its appropriate on the Whistleblowing page. You could state your case there and I'll state mine as well and other editors will weigh in to form a consensus. ThemFromSpace 13:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Fan Expo Canada

Hi - okay, now I gotcha. I've semi-locked it for a week. That may not be long enough, but let's see if he gets a new toy or two for Christmas. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 22:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk back

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

Nomination of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa for deletion

The article African Americans in Davenport, Iowa is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Smoking Cessation Entry

Hi,

I just made my first Wikipedia edit (ever!) on the smoking cessation page and saw that you have previously made several edits to that page. I am an MA candidate in health communication and am interested in Wikipedia and how it as become viewed as a trusted source of health information (specifically when it comes to vaccine safety communication).

I just wanted to reach out and say "hi" and would like your feedback on my very small edit to the page. You can tell I am a student as I likely over-cited my two sentences. I was also unsure where I should put my update as the information I added to the page is based on the 2008 update to the Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence report, which is addressed under the Clinical Practice Guidelines.

LangleyKins (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)