Geni, we all know there are spammers. However, inserting links to a band's official MySpace presence is not spam, and obviously not spam. If it's deleted, it is because the deleter is mindlessly deleting all links to MySpace without critical thought. Such ill thought-out, bot-like behavior is not generally a good idea. -Matt

On 4/25/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: I disagree. Any recent band, pretty much, has a MySpace page that is an important point of contact and publicity site for the band. It's become pretty much de rigeur these days. Of course, since many more bands are unsuccessful than successful, and unsuccessful bands definitely have a need for publicity, the vast majority of bands with official MySpace pages are unsuccessful. This does not imply that having an official MySpace page is an indicator of a band being nobodies. The lack of any official website EXCEPT MySpace may be more indicative, but even then, I don't think too much can be read into it. -Matt

On 4/25/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: "official myspace" ....

Pedro Sanchez wrote: There are very few bands that don't have those. -Jeff -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

geni wrote: I don't see why civility needs to be limited to community members, however that term may be defined. Dialogue before dispute saves a lot of problems. When you delete first you are presuming that you are right do so, and that sets in motion a completely different social dynamic. How can a single entry show persistance? Those participating in the discussion clearly have a goal in mind. It is also clear from that discussion that some links are accepted, and others not. Each needs to be examined on its own merit. Some will indeed be no better than spam links. That still doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to start a dialogue as our first line of attack. Ec

On 4/25/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not so. Firstly, many people are potential community members or indeed simply fairly new community members. Secondly, the way we treat good-faith contributors who are not regulars impacts our reputation in the wider world. Thirdly, the way we treat non-regulars impacts the way we behave towards everyone. Actually, in most cases, informing the uploader and tagging the image for seven-day deletion is normal practice. This is normally done in a semi-automated fashion with notification templates and is not a great imposition, even if you don't have automated tools to speed this up. This of course doesn't apply to egregiously bad misapplications which can probably be speedied, since little attempt to do the right thing have been made. -Matt

On 4/25/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Apologies; I assumed 'remove' meant the deletion process. Regular edits have a lower bar than deletion. With a regular edit, an informative summary is what's required, and then discussion if someone disagrees. It's not necessarily incorrect for an article to have more than one fair-use image or for a fair-use image to be used in more than one article, of course, but I'm sure you know that already. It's just frequently a sign that someone's been over-enthusiastic about fair use. -Matt