User talk:Legionarius

LOTD experiment

My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:

1. Change the image selection
2. Add talk page projects to the list and then add them on the summary table
3. Write a summary of the article in less than 500 characters. I will begin doing this later today for those who don't do it themselves.
4. Participate in the feed back process when it starts on December 1.
5. Participate in the voting when it starts on December 11.

You are free to remain uninvolved. Your list was chosen as being the first one produced by one of the most prolific successful FL nominators.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating a candidate at WP:LOTD. You may want to come by and address some of the feedback you have received before voting begins, which it will in less than 24 hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at the number of people who have nominated candidates and participated in feedback, but have not voted. If I had made voting mandatory, would it have kept you from nominating an article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent linkspam edits

I notice a lot of your edits dated 18 December 2007 to various Arthur Clarke articles that delete all external links claiming they are linkspam.

Please note that a lot of these articles were created by me, & the link to Arthur Clarke Fansite was simply a form of acknowledgment - that I was the author. Even where I am not the original creator, there are often major contributions by me on several articles.

I maintain that site as a hobby, & mostly to avoid massive edits by others if I were to write story summaries at Wikipedia.

If you do not think it is right to acknowledge the contributors, please remove the entire article where I am the principle contributor & original creator - rather than just the acknowledgment link.

Thank you.

Tinkoo (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "linkspam" removal from Traffic

Summary wholesale deletion of an entire section is not being bold, it is being autocratic. Reverting an unwarranted deletion done without consensus does not itself require consensus. It is evident from your contribs page that you are on some kind of a mission to delete what you personally consider "linkspam". I fear your personal definition of the term is rather wider than accepted standards on Wikipedia; please take a few minutes to read and understand the relevant provisions.--Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD congratulations

Congratulations!!! List of wild mammal species in Florida has been chosen in the inaugural class of January 2008 LOTDs. I hope you will continue to participate in the WP:LOTD process. If you have a date preference get back to me by the end of 2007-12-23 UTC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your 18 Dec 07 linkspam edits

I have restored external links dropped by you from most Clarke story articles - except where they really are spam. When dropping them, at least follow them to see if they indeed are spam.

Tinkoo (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted them again. Please review the policies and guidelines linked to directly and indirectly on the message I left on the Tinktoo talk page. Links to fansite reviews are inherently spam, particularly fansites created by the person inserting the links. Even links to the Arthur C Clarke Foundation are not really appropriate for individual short stories written by Clarke - perhaps on his main bio page and/or the article about the foundation. You (Tinktoo) added inappropriate links to 20-30 articles. Given that 90-100% of the material is inappropriate there is no way I am going to review each one to see if there is any salvageable content. I know you're just trying to help the encyclopedia. But in the future, if you face strong opposition to any of your edits on Wikipedia could you please first take some time to review policies and guidelines to see if you might be wrong before turning this into a contest of will with another editor? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chita

Hello,

I appreciate the valuable work you do for Wikipedia, but I have a question regarding the 'Chita, Russia' page. I lived in Chita for sixteen months, wrote about it and placed my musings online (not for commercial purposes but for anyone to read). For months I linked this to the 'Chita, Russia' and 'Siberia' pages on Wikipedia and received tens of hits from those sources every week, plus some positive guestbook feedback. I chose to link (only) from Wikipedia because I reasoned that those seeking knowledge about Chita and Siberia would be among those who would most value my writings.

Recently, links to both have been removed, so I edited them back in, only to see them removed for being 'Too narrow in scope'. Disappointing as this is, I can accept that writing about life in Chita may be too narrow for the 'Siberia' page, but how is it too narrow for a page about Chita? So many people ask me what it was like to live in Siberia, which is one of the reasons I put up my site, and I'm sure many visitors to these two pages would find my content interesting. I don't profit personally from visitors. Can you explain why my site is not permitted as a link from Wikipedia please?

Thanks

SiberianSpireite —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiberianSpireite (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi James! Please do not take it personally. The guidelines in WP:EL disencourage linking to "to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" and "sites that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". Although your account is perfectly enjoyable and an interesting read, the link fails the two conditions mentioned and talk about only a little part of all the aspects that should be covered in an article about Chita/Siberia. If you disagree with my evaluation, please copy/paste your question in Wikipedia talk:External links for additional input from other editors.--Legionarius (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)