Archives

July 2008 – February 2009 March 2009 – June 2009 July 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – June 2010 July 2010 – December 2010 December 2011 – June 2011

Why? There is no article about Jim's Pranks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurstAsh13 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no article about my house either, or the street I live on. Wikipedia isn't a database of everything that exists. There are limits as to what subjects are suitable for an encyclopedia, which are stated explicitly at WP:NOT and incorporated into other polices and guidelines. I referenced the relevant policies and guidelines at the AfD, you should read over those pages to see the issues that they cover and how to avoid them. ThemFromSpace 00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I atleast add it on to Jim's wiki, since it has to do with him pretty much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurstAsh13 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should see how the AfD plays out (it is a week long discussion about whether the article should be deleted - for more information read over this page). You're welcome to comment there stating why you wish to keep the article and any suggestions you have for it. You may also be able to post it on http://theoffice.wikia.com if the article doesn't violate their manual of style or other guidelines. I'm not familiar with that site though so I can't provide any help with that process. ThemFromSpace 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's good reasoning. I'll just keep an eye out for the appearance of the link. ThemFromSpace 23:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yea, I find it too frustrating to edit-war with people unwilling to engage in discussion. I reread the article and there really isn't any negative information, just a disregard for citations and our MOS. I tagged the article for cleanup, but I won't continue to revert back. ThemFromSpace 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - it is ridicoulus - he also uploaded pictures in the commons, that are not selfmade. Plehn (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Themfromspace. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belt Tightening.
Message added 22:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

smithers - talk 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nice find. I closed the debate early due to the added sources you found. The dead links didn't show up in any searches; now that I'm aware of them I think the group has significant coverage. ThemFromSpace 05:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You don't seem to understand how consensus operates. If you say one thing, and several editors say another, you do not get your way. I've replied to the thread at ELN. I'd like you to try to keep the centralised there, for now. ThemFromSpace 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you donot seem to check before commenting. Again, stating in the politest way possible, next time check before you comment on something. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...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)[reply]

You're welcome. ThemFromSpace 08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how's yer machine doin now? regards n-dimensional §кakkl€ 16:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 WuhWuzDat 02:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't leave because of one situation; that's absurd! Look over the thousands of helpful edits that you have made and weigh them against one incident where a few editors think you screwed up. If a consensus develops that you have handled a particular situation incorrectly, learn from the mistake and move on with things. Don't get hung up over it. The encyclopedia stands a lot to gain from your continued editing, and I really wish to see you back here soon. If you are burning out and your experience is more aggravating than rewarding, a short wikibreak may help to clear your mind. My email is also available if you need someone to rant to offwiki. ThemFromSpace 08:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I saw this. Have you actually read WP:CANVASS? --John (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, and I'm also familiar with proper practices for advertising RfAs. The behaviour surrounding this one is very inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the policy would you say it contravened? --John (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I put a response up on the talk page of the RfA. I think that should explain my position. RfA's are very sensitive in nature so any sort of unusual advertising is liable to bias the results. Since they are one of the most participated-in forums here, there is no need to advertise them at all. This is why I take a very loose view of WP:CANVASS when it comes to RfAs, looking at the spirit of the guidelines and seeing what they prevent (gaming the system). ThemFromSpace 17:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that your oppose was not based on policy but on your own idea of what policy should be. --John (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. We can agree to disagree, but you shouldn't hound me like this. Please stop. ThemFromSpace 19:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure if it meets a G3 after you removed the name, but a transwiki would be ok. I don't really know how to perform them myself, though. ThemFromSpace 06:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax for transwiki is pretty easy - #REDIRECT [[wiktionary:exquisite]], but I'm still going to see if an admin will G3 because that name should really be out out of the history. Thanks for the reply.  7  06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the code. ThemFromSpace 07:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Themfromspace, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editor's lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Thanks for the barnstar. What makes your proposed project different from the current RfC? They both look like they are forums for entertaining ideas on how to solve the "BLP problem"? If you want to organize these ideas through a WikiProject, which I think is a good idea, have you considered using the current WikiProject Living People? That could use a bit of revitalization and I believe your proposals fall under its scope. ThemFromSpace 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored invitation) I was being genuine, your idea is wonderful.

Why this side page?

As someone said on the page in question, this is like during a conference, where editors can step away in a small conference room, and reevaluate where everyone stands, and brain storm. The RFC is too big now. WikiProject Living People is a good idea. feel free to post this on the user page, I would do that myself, but I don't want to offend :).Ikip 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a pretty graph based on someone elses idea, which unified a lot of ideas, here what do you think? Do you think the community would want to do it? Ikip 02:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an awfully big change and the community is very wary of big changes and additional bureaucracy. Again I suggest bringing it up at the RfC or some other prominent location. There other editors can critique it and you can get a rough idea of what sort of consensus will get behind it. I'd also suggest taking the non-BLPs out of the proposal for now. There's enough drama just deciding what to do about living people.

I'm still not sure if I'm going to take up your offer to comment in your userspace draft. I'm trying to stay out of this whole BLP shitstorm and lay off the drama. I advise you, and everyone else as well, to do the same and to stay within the established processes as much as possible. For example, I see you've recently been blocked for mass-posting. Fighting fire with fire here isn't going to win you any brownie points, especially with arbcom strongly favoring the out-of-process (and, in my opinion, disruptive) deletions. Don't let your emotions get the better of you. ThemFromSpace 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, I appreciate it. I was hoping to get a few editors critique it before throwing it to the wolves, and for that, I appreciate your comments.

I will make it explicitly BLP only.

Good advice on behavior too. thanks again have a nice weekend if I dont talk to you before.

Wife and I are going to look at a house before work, so I need to crash :/ Ikip 04:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "Create a sort of "holding tank" for all uncited BLP articles" what did you envision? How could I cut away some of this bureaucracy to more closely resemble your proposal? thanks. Ikip 04:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was sort of thinking-out-loud. A separate project space would probably be needed, with perhaps a Wikiproject or some other coordinated task force devoted to them. Some other editors mentioned the article incubator, although I think this would detract from its current task, but the concept is the same. The point is that they would be moved, without redirect, away from the mainspace and catalogued somewhere for spot-checking. The pagemoves would probably need an adminbot but I think the rest can be done without much change to the current system. ThemFromSpace 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is this a little what you had in mind: User_talk:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Steps Thanks :) Ikip 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks about right. The details have to be trimmed up of course, but that would be something for a community discussion. Sorry about the late replys and the lack of participation, I've been rather busy lately. ThemFromSpace 03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply, I am wondering if much of this can be done without incubation/"projectfication", which so many people don't like, for example: Notifying wikiprojects Ikip 16:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion cut down even more

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)[reply]

WuhWuzDat 23:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dread the consequences, but I'll think about it. ThemFromSpace 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's nice to see you back. ThemFromSpace 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --otherlleft 14:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Themfromspace - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please read over our external links guidelines as well as our policy that Wikipedia is not a repository for links to see why we don't allow long sections of links to grow in our articles. There are a lot of things that some readers might find useful that go beyond the scope of Wikipedia. If any of the material within the links is of an encyclopedic nature, you are welcome to add that material to the article and cite the link as a reference. ThemFromSpace 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, we don't link to specific examples in articles about general subjects, which is why I removed the link you entered. I went ahead and removed the other links as well, thanks for bringing them to my attention. This link was brought to my attention due to a recent paid editing request from elance dot com. Please note that Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion or advertising, nor do we accept spam. ThemFromSpace 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, first of all it is nearly impossible to write a neutral article about a company when you are in a conflict of interest, and doing so will likely lead to a promotional-sounding article.

That being said, our formal guideline for inclusion is notability. In a nutshell, if your corporation has already been written about in reliable third-party sources (press releases and other info put out by the company doesn't count), then most likely some sort of article may exist on Wikipedia. This article can't be a promotional puff piece, nor should it exist for the purposes of advertising; rather it should be an encyclopedic exploration of the company's significance within the real world. The example that you point to, Shiftboard, has already been subject to a deletion discussion, and that's even with it being mentioned in the Seattle Times and New York Times! Just at a quick glance, I can't find any articles like that which talk about shiftplanning, so at this time I'm thinking that it probably doesn't pass our notability guidelines. ThemFromSpace 22:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good response. I understand the difference now, and will wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.242.7.210 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why do you ask my opinion in particular? I don't ever remember editing that article. I took a look over the pictures and both appear to be applicable to the article, so I don't really have a preference. ThemFromSpace 09:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that disturbed you. I found you in page's talk archive, where you were mention main image in some way. Yestadae (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, I found that article from a paid-editing request on an external site. I didn't flag it for the conflict of interest just because you were editing it but because when an article is created through paid-editing it automatically adds a financial conflict of interest to the matter. ThemFromSpace 19:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, there really aren't any rules for removing the COI tag, basically if an editor feels that the article doesn't look like it was written with a conflict of interest it can be contested, but this shouldn't be the editor that the tag was aimed at. It might not be there for eternity, but it will be there until the article is fixed. The key guidelines here are WP:COI (conflict of interest) and WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) as well as WP:PROMOTION (Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promotional purposes). ThemFromSpace 05:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just found the link to the editing request. It was hard to find again because it's a two step problem. The link is here and the key is when you google the project creator's screenname you get a YouTube channel advertising thetravelingpoet dot com, which was prominently mentioned in the article. ThemFromSpace 19:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh boy, another poll. I'll look this over. ThemFromSpace 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, yes this is possible. Usually when this happens on Wikipedia we add what's called a disambiguation to the end of the title. So the general idea of what a blook is goes at Blook and the magazine entitled Blook would go at Blook (magazine). For example look at Time and Time (magazine). Also before you start writing your article, you should look over our general notability guideline to see if the magazine is notable enough for inclusion. In a nutshell, if the magazine hasn't recieved significant attention in reliable, third-party sources, it will be very hard to write an objective, verifiable article about it. ThemFromSpace 05:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. Our article on Roe is FA status so its probably not the best one to experiment with since it has to meet our tight guidelines, such as those prescribing the article's lead. I still personally prefer the older versions of the other articles, but I'll leave it up to the editors there to decide what goes best. You could also see what the consensus is at WikiProject law for incorporating this template. ThemFromSpace 07:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I still say the article needs a complete rewrite but sure, if you're working on it I don't see why the tag has to be there. You could have removed it yourself with the note that you were improving the article. ThemFromSpace 19:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake? Sole Soul (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for catching that. ThemFromSpace 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 :)