Jump to content

User talk:Themfromspace

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rrstern25 (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 28 July 2010 (→'Final Warning'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


My talk page guidelines

  • Please add any new sections to the bottom of the page and keep all conversations within their proper headers.
  • If you are here about any external links I removed, please read over this page and this page first.
  • If I first posted at your talk page, respond to me there and I'll answer there.
  • If you post on this page, I will respond to you here.
  • Do not use talkback templates here. Write the note yourself.
  • If you are here as part of a mass-posting campaign, including "thankspam", don't post your message.
  • Assume good faith, but don't sacrifice the truth for politeness.
  • Sign your posts with ~~~~.
  • I have the right to remove your post in its entirety, should I wish to do so.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

'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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Themfromspace&oldid=375910456"