User talk:Showa58taro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You intitally wanted reasons for your website not being added. They were given. Then you wanted another opinion. That happened. You didn't like that opinion. Harassing me isn't the correct route to take. You were spamming now you are harassing. Stop. IrishGuy talk 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is quite frankly absurd, as I repeatedly requested that someone else view the case presented, as I think your policy is flawed, and asked you numerous times to give me a venue to make this request, where it should be allowed to be decided away from your bias. --Showa58taro (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. The two admins who quoted you policy are biased....not so much the two people affiliated with the website they are intent upon spamming. IrishGuy talk 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what bias someone who knows about a site has when he brings that site to the foreground, considering it is entirely non-commercial and impartial. Do those that have recommended links to all the other sites (of the horror kind, I need only site Fangoria and Bloody disgusting) somehow magically appear without being a part of the site? Surely to know something is to be a part of it.

And that is missing the new issue entirely. I disagree with both of your reasons, and want to pursue that further, but I think that deletion of questions about how to seek further help and request that an issue be examined is gross negligence of responsibilities and misconduct as editors and administrators. I wish to report this to a relevant committee.--Showa58taro (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have indeed (I wish to add) noted the following: You are a Wikipedia editor. Since Wikipedia has no editor-in-chief or top-down article approval mechanism, active participants make copyedits and corrections to the format and content problems they see. So the participants are both writers and editors.

As a participant I feel like I've been arbitrarily denied this possibility despite being kind enough to read (repeatedly) all the relevant guidelines.--Showa58taro (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines were noted...and ignored by you and your partner. I asked you both repeatedly to stop posting the same tired arguments...you didn't. I noted that further comments would be deleted...and they were. IrishGuy talk 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We did not ignore your guidelines. In fact I did my very best to avoid getting personal on your short answers, but tried to highlight in as great a detail as possible just how relevant the guidelines were, and how reading them did not match your judgements. Following that, despite changing into a completely different subject, comments were deleted. Comments which were not mere 'rehashed tired arguments' but rather were completely different questions. In light of the response given, I intend to take this up with a relevant committee once I figure out how to do just that. The guidelines were noted and not followed, and questions were not just avoided, but deleted entirely, which is abuse of administrative power. When you have a cite that claims to be run by you as a community that is just mind-boggling.--Showa58taro (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As no administrative tools were used, there was no abuse of administration. You got another opinion...it didn't go your way so you ran back to your message board to post rude comments and asked others to come here and continue your tirade. IrishGuy talk 01:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A question was deleted. That is, to me, abuse of editting powers, considering it was a relevant topic. And I intend to advertise it as such when I make the inquiry. As for 'running back to my message board' there are people there who, like me, disagree with your stance and your policy, and I asked if anyone wanted to voice as much here on this page--Showa58taro (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, comments can be deleted from personal talk pages. It isn't an abuse and you were warned ahead of time that would be the result. IrishGuy talk 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet similar comments have been left by others, just not myself. I see a discrepency and I intend to pursue it on both the count of abuse of powers and misconduct, and of failing to apply the correct guidelines. --Showa58taro (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Others have made the same complaints? Yeah...spammers do have a tendency to get mad when they get caught. As noted, another admin agreed with me. Both you and Foofighter24 are single purpose promotional accounts for your website. Exactly what do you think will happen? Other admins will suddenly step in and allow you to spam? IrishGuy talk 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

When valid questions are deleted, it is abuse of admninistrative powers. We received several different answers about why HorrorMovieFans.com is not notable, including the results of an Alexa search, which is nowhere to be found in the guidelines for creating an external link. Horrormoviefans.com features reviews, interviews, and members who are contributors (actors/directors/producers), experts, and fans of the genre. Our membership base of "just a few hundred" was brought up, and when I explained why other ite's stats are misleading because of how they operate, my statements were not addressed at all. 68.48.233.114 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My account has been single purpose in that Horror is the area in which I can most contribute to the Wiki community and users. Surely it is not uncommon for a user to have a single field of expertise? 68.48.233.114 (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And once again, I can only stress how I intend to pursue this matter, regardless of your false confidence that deleting questions and concerns is a good way to run this site. --Showa58taro (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Pinhead (Hellraiser)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Pinhead (Hellraiser) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\byoutube\.com\/watch' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irtAfnPzxHg) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! SquelchBot (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Vejbystrand

A tag has been placed on Vejbystrand requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jdchamp31 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)