Jump to content

User talk:Hu12/Archive6

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coffee Philosophy (removal of article)

Hello, I notice you removed the article that I had written because the website was launched a few days ago. This is odd as the 'Pownce' article was written on the day of launch. I am most confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickos 12 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iitindia.in (removal of link on Indian Institute of Technology page by you)

Hi Hu12. I appreciate your helping keeping Wikipedia clean. I'd just like to discuss the situation of Indian universities and plight of students looking for information, because of which we had added those helpline links. Those helplines are serviced by real people employed for this reason. We do use adsense but the revenue generated (which is neglegible) is reused to sustain the infrastructure. If you think these helplines do not provide article-related help, then I'd be happy to discuss why. My email is (snipped) in case I lose this ip. PS: I posted this message on my ip's talk page, but since you didn't respond, I had to post here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.154.2 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.tshaonline.com

Hey Hu12. TSHA is the Texas State Historical Association. There was some feeling that the online historical documents are an OK resource, though I don't know if the anti-spam people have looked into the matter separately.

Since you raised the matter at Txnomad's Talk, I opened up Linksearch to have a look:

Links like this one, at Aguilares, Texas are probably OK, at least where our own article has no better references:

  • www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/hna12.html

Links that just go to

  • www.tshaonline.com or to
  • www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online

probably can be questioned.

There are some actual historical documents on their site. See for example:

  • www.tshaonline.com/lshl/texhisdocs00.html

I think the case for keeping these links is the strongest. (Provided there is a direct link to a matching document from the WP article that is trying to address that topic).

I just left a message to User:Txnomad to come back to the Talk thread at WT:EL (still visible on the page) where he previously asked for assistance.

After discussion, we might want to sweep out the top-level links to tshaonline.com that don't go to a specific item, or the ones that just go to their handbook. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with that. thanks ed--Hu12 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic-style diet

Thanks for you help with this article! Why is "About.com" unreliable? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated! --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of SPAM criteria

I was wondering if you could take a look at Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, specifically the external link for mrsaactionuk.net. It has been removed by multiple users, but always re-applied by user:Mariacann, with one brief discussion on his/her talk page.

It's a charity, but I can't see where it adds anything unique to the article (I actually question a few of the other links too, but this is the one that I most question). You have been involved in SPAM discussions before, so I was wondering what your opinion was of the link. Thanks! --161.88.255.139 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, it does not seem to be a resource "About" the suject. Also its a conflict of interest violation. this edit shows she is related to the organization. External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.". You could report this to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if you'd like. Your removal here was correct. If you report be sure to include the IP and usernames adding the link. Thanks for the note--Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kingofmann

This arbitration case has been dismissed and the final decision is available at the link above. The community can take care of this entire issue itself -- the article has been deleted and User:Kingofmann has departed wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apichatpong Weerasethakul and Syndromes and a Century

I understand you are making good-faith efforts to eradicate spam, and I applaud your efforts. The problem I see with removing the mention of the Free Thai Cinema Movement petition and the subsequent reference to it, is that in doing so the fact that the petition exists is being denied by Wikipedia, which is a form of censorship. — WiseKwai 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelisting is not a ruling that the link is relevant[1]. A link should only be implemented where it is demonstrated as a reliable source, in an appropriate context, which in most cases pettitions are not appropriate. As can bee seen here, it refrences itself, does not appear to be a WP:RS, is not neutral and serves no encyclopedic purpose other than for Propaganda or advocacy, which wikipedia is not. Per Wikipedia:NOT#ADVOCATE. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I get it. Thanks. — WiseKwai 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge\Redirect Comparison of one-click hosters

I didn't participate in the RfC because I already voiced my opinion and I didn't think there was much point in just forcing my view across, anyway since there doesn't seem like there will be any further discussion I was thinking of closing the RfC, however I thought I should ask you what the final decision should be?

  • Leave article as is
  • Redirect
  • Merge
  • Delete?
  • or Revive the old article (XD I can always hope)

Also one last thing you did that little preceding sign thing for me at the RfC heading thing, but the RfC template/guide tells us to sign with just (02:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) so you might want to change that bit in the guide so others don't get confused like me.

Merged into One-click hosting.--Hu12 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senang Hati Foundation and others

Hi, and thanks. Care to process the rest of my request at WP:RFPP? Guy's been busy. --Jack Merridew 14:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page was on my watchlist, I did not see your RFPP. Any way, good call. Protected it for 2 months, thanks. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We met on that article before. I've tried to steer clear of it in the hope that others would edit it and remove your COI concern. I see you removed the Indonesian Development of Education and Permaculture site links. I looked at those pages again, and they seem a bit old, but they do add coverage. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a see also section with Indonesian Development of Education and Permaculture. see →Senang Hati Foundation#See also. --Hu12 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. I'm not going to edit the article further other than to deal with vandals. Any chance you could look at the rest of the WP:RFPP batch? A bunch there need semi-protecting. Interesting tools I saw you add to the anon pages. I'll be looking closer tomorrow and may ask you about them. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paralegal

There should be, IMHO, external links to NFPA and NALA -- the two largest paralegal groups in the USA -- in this article. I've noticed you have taken them out, or a spambot has detected and blocked them. Although this article is a spam magnet, I think removing a legitimate link is "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Disclosure: I am a full-time Paralegal teacher (see my user page) and my program's club is a supporting member of NFPA through an affiliate, the CDPA. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFPA is no longer blocked. Feel free to edit them back in the article. ;) Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive added NFPA and NALA to the EL section. Thanks Bearian--Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!! Bearian (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my accounts.

Please delete cparizo, christine5797, and fpkllp. I have no desire to be associated or contribute to a site that is rejecting legitimate information and censoring userpages that contain legitimate information about users. By deleting information about WMPA, PG, and NFPA, you are robbing visitors of valuable information about the paralegal profession. I am appalled and disgusted, and I will not recommend Wikipedia as a source of information in the future. Furthermore, I'm posting this on YOUR talk page because I keep getting an error message that this message contains spam WHEN IT DOES NOT. --Cparizo (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the following; Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:User page, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:SOCK and WP:COI. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be promotional. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love. Linking for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not appropriate. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?--Hu12 (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I choose to no longer improve Wikipedia.--Cparizo (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to delete my accounts, can you please unlabel them as "sock puppets"? I was planning to use cparizo to post about paralegal-related topics, and use fpkllp to post about entertainment law. Also, ParalegalGate is not mine. I thought that that particular site would be helpful to users, and I apologize if you took it as spam. --Christine5797 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies apply per person, not per account. If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked and labeled as {{Sockpuppeteer}} at the discretion of any administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may also be blocked. Neither of those actions was done to your main account, Christine5797. I have spared that account in an attempt at a second chance by allowing you to contribute to the encyclopedia. Policies apply per person, not per account. The right to vanish/delete/unlabel for those accounts does apply to pages retained for the purposes of protecting the website against disruption; for example sock accounts or sock puppet categories. If you change your behavior and avoid further breaching of the relevant policies and guidelines, there is no reason for a connection to be made to the disabled accounts. Lets focus efforts and time to more productive channels. Thankyou--Hu12 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linksearch for https sites

You have to explicitly specify https in the query string, for example Special:Linksearch/https://*.example.com. It should default to searching all protocols. See bugzilla:12810. MER-C 04:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perchta

I undid your last edit that referred to spam. My comment was "(Undid revision 186882841 by Hu12 (talk) - Referenced Article on Perchta. Not Spam." I thank you for trying to catch spam, but this was cited reference material, that taking it away would leave some of the article facts unsupported. I think Spam is usually an advertisement or nonsense that has not value. Goldenrowley (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

What you said on my talk page ("talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice") is true with a few exceptions, and these include WP:BLP considerations and spam. It is pointless to delete spam from a page and then include the very links that are spam on another page. The spammer wins either way. Might I suggest you go back and delete the spam you so helpfully included for the benefit of the spammer since you have locked the page. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what your interest is in these blocked sockpupet accounts?--Hu12 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No interest in the accounts themselves. Just in the spam. Why is it logical to delete spam from one page and post it on another? Clearly you need to tell the user that you have removed the spam, but you don't need to give the URLs. It defeats the purpose of removing the spam in the first place and plays into the spammers hand by retaining the spam on a "live" Wikipedia page. Doesn't it? Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review of you contributions shows no interest in spam previously, just confrontation with other editors. In the last several days you have done little editing outside this issue, again I ask what your interest is in these blocked sockpupet accounts?--Hu12 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever. Why are you avoiding my question? Not being confrontational, just wondering about the logic. If there is a good reason behind it fine, but otherwise we might want to review a policy that leaves spam links on "live" pages. One of the reasons I do very little editing on WP these days is because of issues like this. We are supposed to delete spam and libelous or unsourced material, and yet when we do, editors become confrontational. Either we uphold policies or we don't. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my asking is that you targeted the same info as the sock puppet user did, and you have no edits, in relation to or on the the pages edited by the blocked user[http:// vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=en&page=Paralegal]. Few people will edit user pages in that manner, which they have no interest. live links with a subdomain of spam are used for tracking purposes, however in the case of blocked sockpupet accounts, the URL's have been blacklisted and their accounts are retained for administrative purposes for protecting the website against future disruption.--Hu12 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand that. I just came across those users looking up paralegal and saw the spam and deleted it. I have deleted spam in the past, although I don't go looking for it; it's only if I come across it. You may notice from my history that I often make single edits to pages that I come across while surfing, and never go back to them. I actually use WP as a resource too! I wonder if there is a way to achieve the results you are talking about without the URLs being visible. Because to my mind, all a spammer has to do is relentlessly add links, knowing that even if they are deleted from the main article or userpage they will still be found, as I found the links on on that userpage. And people will follow those links out of curiosity, even if they have to copy and paste. So the spammer wins. There has to be a better way, but I will leave that to you and the other dedicated spam fighters to consider. Thanks. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could alway use a hand @ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam if interested..cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about it but I don't have much time these days (just started a new job!) I'll watch the page for now at least. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign exchange market

why remove the market segments section? Jackzhp (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two-fold. Empty links added to an article do not add content or meaning, and mentions such as examples are generally not encyclopedic. I should have noted this in the edit summary. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is to add a section - market segments. I didn't intend to write a lot, but give people some ideas about the segments. Concerning empty links, if you want, you can create those articles. To leave them empty does not hurt the readers. whatever you want to write, the market segments should be there (i think). Jackzhp (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the blue links could be added to the "See also" section, where it appears EBS is already listed (but needs to be linked to Electronic Broking Services rather that to a disambiguation page.--Hu12 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Empires

I disagree with your characterization of the debate as general and unrelated. Because AfD is not a vote, not all comments are preceded by a !vote label, especially those from new users who are making a good faith attempt at saving the article. I find it highly inappropriate that as the nominator of the article, you edited out all discussion save for the four Delete !votes

I have opened up a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I invite you to respond. -- RoninBK T C 10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of time tracking software

Your said... Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However Comparison of time tracking software has an established basis for inclusion. Any site listed in this article must pass the notability guidelines at WP:WEB, already have an article on Wikipedia and be primarily concerned with time tracking software. The article you added was removed because it was felt it didn't meet one or more of these criteria. If you disagree feel free to discuss it on the talk page. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So we would meet all guidelines except DOVICO does not have a Wiki page. I would gladly create one and have done so, but it was removed by another editor (and advised not to create one). So you have a couple of companies that created pages (that did not get edited out, maybe the people who work there are also editors? I see they are smaller companies?? ). This means your list is not really correct, and goes against the intent of the content. So what would you advise me to do?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty25 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 January 2008


Jan 30, 2008 - As of yet, no reply? Please advise....—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty25 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 January 2008


spam warnings at Wheelchair ramp

Will you check to see if I'm following the spam warnings guidelines at Wheelchair ramp before I use the fourth warning or file an admin incident? I'd really just like to have the link (and its co.uk version) blacklisted since a dozen or so IPs and users (User talk:Crsuk) have been spamming a half dozen or so articles since March despite numerous warnings and reverts. The wheelchair ramp history is a good snapshot of the activity around the website adds. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Persistant spammer thats for sure. This site should be no longer be an issue, Crsuk has been blocked and the URL is blacklisted. see →See WikiProject Spam report. Good work. If you come across this type of abuse (multiple WP:SPA accounts or IP's) spamming a single site(and related) again you can report to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam or MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. ....I've also left you a note on your talk page ;)--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help and encouragement! I thought it was just me. Flowanda | Talk 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unrealroyal.com

Hu12 I don't find it appropriate for you to be the closer on this. Please re-open and realize that consensus is to remove this site from the blacklist, not to retain it on the blacklist. Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed after the first discussion. Consensus was achieved by multiple admins in the first request, yet you chose in pursuit of a certain point, despite that concensus, to re-request within 3 days of the other request being declined. The site is entirely original research that is not published in a reputable form as defined by the reliable source policy. It is partisan, biased, and not a reliable source per policy. It is unsuitable as a link for BLP and reliable source reasons, therfore there is no valid reason for its removal.--Hu12 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. My request was not Point, it was re your out-of-process blacklisting as I and others pointed out to you. Whether the site is or isn't OR is no basis for black-list as you know. Blacklist is for spam. Partisan, biased, reliable, none of those are reason for blacklist. The valid reason is community consensus. Are you objecting to our stated goal of obeying community consensus? Can you point to any other editors who continue to support your own position? As you can see, there are many who support unblacklisting. I just want to be clear on this. Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that the unrealroyal.com site is NOT a spam site. To list it as such is incorrect. If it falls foul of other Wiki rules then it must be listed against them. Unfortunately you are giving the impression that you are taking this personally because now deleted Howe article was yours rather than looking at it dispassionately. I feel some uninvolved Admins need to be review the situation. --Heraldic (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Hu12. I would like to express my concern that you may have a bias against the site in question, given that you created the article King David Isle of Man, which was later moved to David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) and eventually deleted and redirected. From the early version of the article, as you created it, it appears to me that you considered David Howe's claim to be King of Mann to be valid. You also included, as an external link, www.royaltyofman.com, the subject's own web site which is itself partisan, biased, and unreliable. Meanwhile, the site in question, unrealroyal.com, is devoted to criticism of Howe's claim. Thus, it would have been better to have an admin who has not previously been involved in the David Howe debate rule on whether to remove unrealroyal.com from the blacklist. I request that you re-open the discussion and allow another admin (hopefully one not previously involved) to make a ruling on unrealroyal.com instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stated my reasoning in the initial report. Criticism of Howe's claim was never the reason for the blacklisting. Would have never been blacklisted if it did not contain an entire page devoted to outing various editors ("Wikipedia.htm" located at unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html) in an attempt to identify and harass several Wikipedia users. Statements such as Wjhonson's on you talkpage is meritless and and embelished with absolute untruths. This is an attempt to mischaracterize my involvment with that article to seem unreasonable or improper, however any review of my actual involvment shows otherwise. You should be aware this continued evidence he is infact following through with his off wiki threat to "battle it out" by using wikipedia as a battleground, see my post here. Consensus was achieved and supported by an univolved admin (also a meta admin) in the first removal request. Unfortunatly he's "asking the other parent", by asking you for outside opinions until he gets an opinion he likes. As shown in google groups discusson he is acting in a Meatpuppet capacity for the purpose of influencing the blacklisting, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits related to the interests of the site owner of unrealroyal.com.--Hu12 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12 I would suggest you review our Dispute resolution procedures before you accuse me of something unethical in turning to others for help. You will see that it is, in fact, part of the normal procedure. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether this would be a candidate for RfC/U or whether you'd like to go direct to mediation. Please let me know. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan90, I've removed the link and defered it to User:SquelchBot for monitoring (even with the attack page removed, there is no assurence against its return and is still unsuitable as a link for BLP and reliable source reasons). This, however, does not excuse Wjhonson's behavior in manipulating Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests by acting in a capacity for the purpose of influencing, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits for the site owner of unrealroyal.com. Although his behaviour is clear misuse wikipedia and disruptive, I'll leave it to some other admin to propose sanctions. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, I fully support Wjhonson in his saying that you were not the right person to close the issue of spam blacklisting unrealroyal.com. Surely you can see that it should have been closed by an uninvolved person and that you were involved throughout. This appears to breach WP:COI and seems quite wrong. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An univolved admin (also meta admin) closed the removal request, not I. Repeating the same request 3 days after that close, does not become re-opened by virtue of repetition.--Hu12 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Herby closed out-of-process and contra-consensus. We never gave blacklist the power to black on RS. If you think we did, point to where we did. In fact the ArbCom I pointed to is specific on the regard of links that are content related. RS is 100% content related. Blacklist is for spam and spammers. We never gave the power to net-nanny every link to blacklisters. I would welcome you Hu12 to contribute on the new essay/guideline on which I'm working which will clarify exactly when and when-not the blacklist is to be used.Wjhonson (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, good for you proposing above that "someone else..." but less good that you "...propose sanctions". You don't seem to have taken on board the two issues of concern (to me anyway). One is the justifications (or not) for putting a site on the spam blacklist. The second is what I perceive to be WP:COI in your continued involvement in the David Howe issue generally. I now add to my concerns your seeming lack of awareness that sanctions should not be used by admins as punishment. I can see this going to rfc and then to arbcom. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: barnstar

awww shucks... <blush>... Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 04:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly earned it!! your welcome ;)--Hu12 (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from SEOlogy CEO

Dear Hu12,

My name is Natan Birenboim, I'm the CEO of SEOlogy.co.il, a leading white-hat SEO company in Israel which optimizes the websites of large, notable organizations in Israel and abroad.

A few days ago I've found out that most of our clients, including ourselves, are listed on Wikipedia's Blacklist. After investigating the issue, I have sadly realized that one of our employees abused Wikipedia by pushing links to his own private websites into several entries, ignoring Wikipedia's rules and warnings, disregarding our policies.

If this issue would have been brought to my attention, I would have made sure immediately that it doesn't happen again. But since I haven't personally gotten a warning, there was no way I could have known about the issue.

I have just fired the employee responsible for this disgrace. I request that our company's clients' legitimate websites be delisted from Wikipedia's blacklist immediately.

Here is the list of sites that I request to be delisted:

www.fancydiamonds.net
www.hadassah.org.il
www.fts-soft.com
www.orange.co.il
www.seology.co.il
www.wao.co.il
www.3dvsystems.com
www.africa-israel.co.il
www.arkia.co.il
www.caesarstone.com
www.cognifit.co.il
www.e-mindfitness.com
www.eldan.co.il
www.gemini.co.il
www.hadasit.co.il
www.hertz.co.il
www.idit-technologies.com
www.mainsoft.com
www.meitav.co.il
www.optier.com
www.optonol.com
www.ortal-hr.co.il
www.prepwizard.com
www.reliable.co.il
www.shahal.co.il
www.shomreymishkal.co.il
www.silentium.com
www.tambour-paint.com
www.verlain.com
www.verlain.co.il
www.verlain.fr

Please let me know how we can proceed.


Regards,

Natan Birenboim,
SEOlogy CEO
natan@seology.co.il
972-77-3330186/7

Mr. Birenboim has left similar messages on multiple talk pages; I've started a centralized discussion at:
--A. B. (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside (magazine)

Would you mind revisiting the Outside (magazine) article you deleted? It's clearly a very notable magazine, and I'm surprised to see it speedily deleted as spam. Jfire (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done--Hu12 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingofmann

Thank you for correcting the IP sock template. It bothers me slightly that User:DukeofAntwerp is shown on Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Kingofmann while User:Lazydown etc are not. Maybe another amendment would be beneficial. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added them all to "suspected", which isn't a big deal. At least they are all lumped together. Do you want DukeofAntwerp in or out of that group?--Hu12 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely in. But I doubt User:24.27.109.30 is one of his since he argues against K of M. It puzzled me how to do it since some are suspects and some are confirmed. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template conflict is that the checkuser occured here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kingofmann, rather than Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kingofmann. Which was why I had to improvise the templates on the other accounts[2]. I can put them back, if you want. --Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I have created a redirect at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kingofmann. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more IP's.--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:72.85.191.112

Thanks! I had just reverted Yellow Pages and was wondering which was the best template to put on the talk page when you finished the job for me. Certes (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YW.. The templates codes are {{subst:uw-spam1}} {{subst:uw-spam2}} {{subst:uw-spam3}} {{subst:uw-spam4}} --Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be useful. Strangely our paths cross again: I've just reverted .uk, as 80.46.52.249 (talk) has the same taste in websites as your new friend 81.157.211.57. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Certes (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, left you a note ;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first award - very kind of you! I haven't been here quite long enough to remember to sign all my posts yet, but I'm trying to put back a little of what I've got out of WP over the years. Certes (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your doing fine. You probably already know but the templates for user talk pages is located →Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and templates for for articles →Wikipedia:Template messages. These should be in the "Toolbox' on the left.--Hu12 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical DNA test - tutorial section

Hello Hu12,

I find that the tutorials at Genebase are useful in explaining the basics of genetic genealogy and the testing procedures. Together with other tutorials that are listed on the page, it makes the article more comprehensive. Most tutorial links are not inappropriate, and contain similar levels of promotional content. Hence, if the tutorials from Genebase are deleted, the other tutorials should also be deleted for the same reason.

On the contrary, the link to Family Tree DNA in the tutorial section is inappropriate because it is a Product Description page instead of an actual tutorial. The page itself is definitely used for advertising since all 17 sections in the page end with linking you to the ordering page for their DNA kits.

Thanks, ddsummers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddsummers (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs on Philippine media articles

Aren't you going to AFD other media articles from other nations, too? Otherwise, I'll invoke non-admin closure pointing out WP:POINT. --Howard the Duck 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and those AFD' nominated are policy based. Closure by a non admin early based on WP:POINT would be WP:POINT now woulden't it?--Hu12 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to bring this issue to WP:TV since there are tons of similar articles. I suggest to bring to AFD the more high-profile articles such as this then whatever happens there would be applied to all other articles of similar sort. Nominating a list of third-world country smacks of bias. --Howard the Duck 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And don't worry about non-admin closure, I'll do it when there are sufficient number of people saying "keep" (I can't invoke non-admin closure for delete since I can't delete it). --Howard the Duck 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You participation negates you invoking anything of the sort. Just as I wouldn't delete an article that I've nominated or participated.--Hu12 (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is a long litany of keeps I can invoke that. Bring it to DRV if I ever do it. --Howard the Duck 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldent be DRV, this type of situation would go to WP:AN/I--Hu12 (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno... I've seen several non-admins who voted keep (the last vote) then closed it as "non-admin closure".
And if the ratio is 10:1 it is pretty much academic. Now if I closed it when the ratio is 10:8 then you should bring it to WP:ANI. --Howard the Duck 15:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they've participated, they shouldn't have done that. They should have let it either run its course or wait till an univolved user of admin closes it. None of that has to do with ratios, its a COI and inapropriate--Hu12 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put this way: if the ratio is not overwhelming, I won't do it. If I did it, even with a 10:1 ratio report me to WP:ANI and let them decide. I've seen this non-admin closure done by other users and no one complained, especially on a lopsided XFD. --Howard the Duck 15:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yippi.com deletion under G4

Hey, Hu12. I've been helping and advising the user who created the article since I deleted it previously. It was sent to AFD before, and the consensus (2 votes) was that it should be deleted because of lack of references. The user who created the article has worked very hard to find and provide many more references than were in the article in the first place. I think at the very least the new sources might make it deserve another chance at AFD instead of being speedied again. I think it would be a gesture of good faith to the editor in question as well, as they're relatively new and have been trying hard to learn how to edit the encyclopedia appropriately. What are your thoughts on it? Thanks for your consideration! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ioeth. Have a look here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Yippikya_LLC._Spam. If you were working with the user, my apologies it wasn't my intention to interupt. I'm all for good faith, however the content of that link is concerning. I would like your input on that, and hear your recomendation on how to move forward. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem, Hu12! I do agree that the content of the link is concerning. Without the references that had been added in the user's latest attempt, I'd be on the exact same page as you. On the upside, the Yippi.com article (the main one) hasn't been recreated since the AFD closed, and I've been working with Mattrstites since then to help him identify and gather references. I think that those additional references look decent, though, so I'm inclined to give the article another chance since the consensus at the AFD (in which there were 2 votes, 3 if you count the nomination) was that it didn't have enough of them last time. Since you're the deleting admin and a veritable expert on Wiki-spam I'll let you make the final decision, though. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-spam work

Hi Hu12. I noticed just now you removing links to Paste Magazine's website and was wondering if you had seen my report here. Cheers, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was so kind of you to give me a barnstar. Thank you! --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome;)--Hu12 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I don't know your motives but I think you should air your side here.--Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motives? You mean the reasons for nominating content that does not belong in an encyclopedia? I've already stated such criteria. If you have policy-based comments you would like to add, your welcome to express them on the Afd. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look I nicely invited you to this discussion. I stated my request in as a neutral form as possible. As of now I am resisting the urge to express a knee-jerk reaction regarding westerners who suppresses my people whether the cause is logical or not (or even if the person in question is a Westerner at all). Last time this happened, there was a lot of application of Godwin's law and other bad faith assumptions. I think by preempting this response, I'm saving us and you a lot of drama. I'll investigate the Afd's later after work.--Lenticel (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save you a lot of drama, and suggest you spread the word to our people. Some types of comments are never acceptable "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.". Maybe I'm african, lebanese or japanese ? This is Wikipedia, those type of snipy racialy charged / regionaly-centric speculative slurs are contrary to the spirit of the project and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's why I'm saving you the drama. Look I'm not picking a fight here ok? Lots of Phil Afd = Attack to Phil. (not logical but to an emotionally charged person it is).--Lenticel (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. I won't do drama when it comes to personal attacks, wether racialy or regionaly. Comment on the content not the user. We are all wikipedians and as such content that does not belong in an encyclopedia = Afd. There is no conspiracy nor were they chosen over other articles. There is no regional bias or cabal they just plainly failed "Wikipedias" policies for inclusion. Thats it, fairly simple. Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground for whats best for Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. Spam can be stopped! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you please look at my post on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? It is a fairly urgent request that I would like someone to look at and I'm sure you can help. Thanks. — Save_Us † 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added a comment also. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and replied :) — Save_Us † 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could unblacklist it, it would be most helpful. It is most likely a false positive. — Save_Us † 23:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. You did the right thing!--Hu12 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And no problem. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

G'day Hu12. I see you reverted my edit of the Blechman link at the Rock Pigeon article. Fair enough. What I'd been trying to do was add the link as an "authorlink" in the "citebook" template but came to the sudden realization that the authorlink is for wikilinking to existing articles on particular authors. So failing that I figured I'd use the "url" parameter? It was just that the link had been blacklisted earlier (I only found this out a couple of weeks ago when I tried to add the link for the book). I went to see about getting the link of the banned list and was successful at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I have also been in contact with the actual author via email. He was wanting a link [http:// andrewblechman.com/learn_more.html "Pigeons: The Fascinating Saga of the World's Most Revered and Reviled Bird" by Andrew D. Blechman] placed with his book citation. I personally do not see this as a spam link? Having my edit reverted without a reason given in the edit summary has left me wondering just why exactly you think it should have been reverted? I've since added the link in the external link section. Perhaps that is more acceptable to you? Either way I'd like to hear your view on this please. Cheers, Sting au Buzz Me... 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My error, feel free to revert my edit;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of link from Yue Fei article

Why was it listed as a blacklisted link? It is just a Chinese-English dictionary. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major spamming, multiple IP's. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available you may  Defer to Whitelist. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was using it as a citation to support the meaning of a set of Chinese characters. I will look into getting that specific link put on the whitelist. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've whitelisted that url, feel free to add it back.--Hu12 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nothing

You wrote: ...userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version. It appears User:DBetty/Sandbox is a copy of Pediatrics. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceptive; in this case you are wrong. I am preparing an edit. --DavidB 07:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:DBetty"

ChineseInkDesign.com

Hi Dear Hu12,

How are you? I am the webmaster of ChineseInkDesign.com. I believe that my site links on Wiki were recently all removed. No offensive meaning, but may I know if you are the one who removed them? If so, again, no offensive meaning, may I know the reason?

If your reason is good, we shall follow your reason and not post in Wiki again. If my reason of posting is reasonable to you, would you please also re-consider to undo your edit? (To show my respect to you and to the spirit of public editing, we will not do any further editing before I have your reply)

From my personal understanding, Wiki is the best place for people to find information and knowledge they need. I strongly believe that ChineseInkDesign provide useful materials to people who are seeking for Kanji/Hanzi Calligraphy related info. We now provide than 340 thousand Hanzi calligraphy related images in our database (Those images are not stolen or copied from others.. we "created" every images, it was 7 years work). Users can freely search for those images without paying. We only charge designers who need the images for commercial use.

Dear Hu12, before your re-consideration, please also look at our name search engine first: www.Chineseinkdesign.com/Search/NameSearch.aspx I do not believe there is another website freely provides so many English/Spanish names in Chinese Calligarphy as this site does. We spent 1 year doing the translation, and matching the calligraphy images to the translations.. I truely believe this page is benefitial to people who are seeking for Chinese names related info on Wiki...

Same thing, please also look at our other two search engines for oriental calligraphy and calligraphy paintings... www.Chineseinkdesign.com/Search/WordSearch.aspx www.Chineseinkdesign.com/Search/PaintSearch.aspx Do you think they are really useless for Hanzi/Kanji calligraphy related topics?

When I and my friends chose the topics of Wiki to put links, we were very careful because we know that we want to contribute to Wiki, not ruin it. If we only want to do business, the $118 revenue in whole 2007 does not make sense, right? Our mission is to build a new silk road over internet to re-introduce the beauty of oriental culture/art to western world. If there is something we did wrong, please let us know...we will adjust.. thank you... Best regards,

Weichung Hu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.73.101.29 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

about my talk page. seems everyone concerned is out to show themselves is the worst light possible. DGG (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

army-guide

Hi Hu12, I noticed you removed a ref from AMX-30 Bridge; it appears army-guide links are getting confused with the blacklisted barmy-guide, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/army-guide.com. Marasmusine (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion, \barmy-guide\.com is Regex expression for army-guide.com. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#3_years_of_Spamming_of_http:.2F.2F_spam.army-guide.com. long term problem.--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, heh, here's me thinking there's some horrible website called barmy-guide. It's a shame it's blacklisted, because it's the only reference I have for the last statement in the History section. Marasmusine (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain deletion of the Fuchs references on Materials MASINT?

What is blacklisted and why? That seemed a useful reference. Even if there was some commercial content, it was not excessive. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look above↑--Hu12 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to collect my thoughts together so I have a coherent set of answers, and will get back to you. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take tour time, once you accept I'll list it.--Hu12 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome your comments on a draft that I prepared in my Sandbox. See if I missed anything you would normally expect to be addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lars recall criteria is a good choice. Overall looks good. the article pushers may question why you havent created more articles, probably want to change the wording "I've only created one article on Wikipedia "(2A), let them figure that out. Backlogs(#1), which require the attention of administrators. (Category:Administrative backlog) always needs attention. I see nothing that needs changing.--Hu12 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Filled in my answers as requested, and accepted the nomination. I see that the end date for the discussion is shown as 18 February, 7 days from when you originally filled in the form; can you change that? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Its live and listed--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Special Response Units

I noticed that in your last editing of [[List of Special Response Units, you deleted all listed French units. But I don't see how they are a conflict of interest editing. Can you explain that please ? Thank you in advance. Rob1bureau (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. But it's me who did the edits on the French units part (see User Rob1bureau, on 15 January 2008 in the of the page, it was some days before the big series of edits by 90.205.xxxxx began. So I think my edits were reverted by mistake. Rob1bureau (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were fine, the others were removed. Oops, ok I see. reverted back to your version. Cheers;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re. revision on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

I checked out User:Newtowiki2's contribs as you suggested. While s/he appears to be a newbie with questionable English or typing skills, I can't agree that this user's contributions are anywhere near the point of meriting removal per WP:FORUM. The post on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist I restored clearly did not, as it pertained directly to the spam blacklist. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I AGF, however a 2 day old account with umpteen trivial comments and one pointy comment, smells a bit like duck to me.--Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which was the comment that was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, exactly? I don't see disruption or a point. Mike R (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your review

I was wondering if I could get your opinion on Canadian_Pacific_Railway#Canadian_CPR_travel_links. To me, they are marketing/advertising links; but they are related to some degree to the subject of the article, so I wanted to get someone with more hands-on time with dealing with SPAM to make the determination. I was going to ask about it on the talk page for WP:WPSPAM - but that page appears geared towards technical use by the project rather than discussion, so I decided to bring it to your attention instead. If you prefer it addressed elsewhere, please let me know. I have no first hand involvement with that article, it was pointed out to me in a seperate discussion taking place at Talk:Puget_Sound_Mosquito_Fleet#Article_Linkfarm. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, both fail Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. I'll look further in a few. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikibreak

Hello my friend. Just wanted to let you know I have decided to take an extended wikibreak. My family and I have several vacations coming up, and there's lots of things I'll be doing in the real world. And quite frankly, the trolls (and other's tolerance of them) have been making this hobby less than fun lately.

I was wondering if wouldn't mind keeping an eye on my talk page while I'm away. I hate the thought of some obnoxious vandalism sitting there until I get back, and there might be a legitimate issue posted you could help out with. (I'm leaving the exact same message with A. B.) If you need to reach me, I'll be checking email from time to time.

So keep up the great work, and hopefully I'll see you in a few months. Thanks. — Satori Son 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, already on the watch list ;). No worries. Have fun on your vacations!--Hu12 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hey I'm sorry about spamming Wikipedia and I will help remove it. I didn't know that creating a link to more information was spam. --Jklmcw (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a WP:SPAM template for blatantly misrepresents established policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Those two things have different goals.--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paralegal

I added information on certification. OK? Bearian (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asia spam being re-added again

The owner of the Asia fanclub has sidetracked the Wiki blacklist of his original website URL and registered a new "un-black'd" version to spam the Asia (band) article again. This time he is showing up as http://asiafanclub.4t.com/contact.html. Is there any chance of having this address blacklisted as well? Using sockpuppets and issuing legal threats is one thing... but now he is moved up to a new level of spam determination. Can it be blocked? Thanks for you help. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate being called an SOB :) . It's so un-wiki-like. :D 156.34.225.77 (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given your past involvement, you may be interested in contributing to a new discussion at Talk:Asia (band)#Proposal to re-insert certain external links. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, we may have our differences but I come to ask you to please remove he site from the blacklist asit has cancelled a very expensive SE program. I promose not to re-edit the link back in until it is talked about on the page as we are doing. Sincerely.. AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings, nor does our local blacklist. If search engines update there algorithms, site links ect., its unrelated to wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the response sir, I check the SE google every other day, and I have a program that tells me where my visitors come from, and starting a few days ago I noticed I wasn't getting hits from google, ask and AOL, and others all of sudden, there is no way my site was dropped because I pay a high fee to have it relisted every month, what I did find. "MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFYI, this link has been removed from the blacklist by CIreland. References:. Talk:Asia (band)#Fan club link blacklisting as well as the preceding discussion ...

wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist - 307k - Cached - Similar pages

User talk:Hu12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The owner of the Asia fanclub has sidetracked the Wiki blacklist of his original website URL and registered a new "un-black'd" version to spam the Asia ... wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Hu12 - 104k - Cached - Similar pages More results from wiki.riteme.site »" With repect sir I'm coming to you and politely asking you to please remove my site from the blacklist, this was about an the inclusion of a link, in regard to that, you have a promise from me that I will not reinstate the link until an agreement is reached. Please sir, I didn't nothing to you, if you look at what happened this was removed when I moved the link to the #2 slot in the external links section... then you know who wrote you and he went a rampage to see my site off. This is how this stared, I wasn't an angel in response, and I apologize, I'm sorry. Sincerely...AP

I'm sure you are sorry, however as demontrated previously and as demonstrated by your posts today[3][4][5], your simply using wikipedia for promotional purposes. Your past abusive linking and legal threats (ect) are just some of the reasons the other admins put it on the list. The list only prevents linking from Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with search engines. --Hu12 (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir, those posts are in regard to a private program to stop interference of it, nothing to do with using wiki for promotional purposes. This is non profit site that existed in the article until I rearranged the external links order. Wikipedia also mentions the retraction of legal threats and that I have done. Also for what is it is worth wikipedia does state that if legal action will be taken it can't be stopped, I simply said today that this may be reviewed by an attorney, that was for advice on how to handle this and his outlook on the wiki policy concerning external links. The wiki legal threat clause does not really exist in US legislation if one was illegally accused of spam, they know that, I already called them and found their legal dept. To be clear I withdraw legal action, and kindly again ask with respect to remove my site from the blacklist spam list. The site belongs in the artile as stated by wiki policy, relevant content that would not be included in the wiki article "such as" reviews and interviews, that we have, also such as is not limited to the reviews and interviews we have, we have more relevant content that would not be normally included in the wiki article. Information about the JY tour added yesterday, the exclusive photo LP exclusive to the fan club. Sincerely... AP

I was asked to come here and ask you to please remove my site from the blacklist, I rather do this the easy way, first of all you have a promise from I'll never come back here, acually I don't want to be assoiated with wiki in any way, we don't want or need you people, but the blacklist interfered with a program of mine on Google, as you can see here how Gooogle picks up on the words blacklist http://blog.anta.net/2007/04/18/blacklisted/ please respond back either way, I need and would appreciate this, so I know I can say I exusted all diplomatic efforts. Wiki have labeled a non profit organizattion as spam, no one would believe that we have been on an 8 year spam mission after we spent hundreds on volunteer work for this band. Sincerely, AP

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 03:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best pic I've seen

Comparison of one-click hosters

Hi, I've seen that you have deleted the history of the article and the discussion page of Comparison of one-click hosters (here) for the reason of "Housekeeping". I don't think that this is a case of housekeeping, because this information is still useful for me and other users, so I would like to ask you to restore the history. Thanks. --X-Bert (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userfied. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Could you please also restore the original discussion page? It is interesting for anybody who wonders why there is no such extended list. --X-Bert (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
==Deletion Review for Talk:Comparison of one-click hosters==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Comparison of one-click hosters. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --X-Bert (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please unrevert your revert

of my last edit (although I realize this is a shared address). for personal reasons I do not wish to log in, but I am that user (mail me for confirmation if you care to). cheers, alex. 209.183.34.45 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand

I do not understand this as the editor in question is not currently blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI that I am reverting your revert, as editors are free to delete comments from their talk page at will. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamford and that COI tag

He's at it again; see WP:ANI#Bamford and that COI tag. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please note this page where an editor has opened up a Deletion Review of an AfD debate you were involved in. Whilst such a request is clearly within their rights that editor has only contacted one or two of those who took part during the AfD process. It would in my view be more appropriate to include a notice to all persons (including yourself) that were interested in the first Article for Deletion debate, and I provide such a notice and link here. Best wishes --VS talk 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA support

→ In re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdJohnston.

Your support is obvious to anyone who reads the nomination, but it you don't add it in the numbered section as well it won't be counted — Athaenara ✉ 23:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the kind of note which really calls for archiving, so feel free to delete it after (rather than before? *doh*) you've read it! — Athaenara ✉ 23:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mule (Software)

Hi Hu12, I noticed you reverted the edits on the Mule (Software) page. I'm not sure why you did this - the edits appear just fine to me. Are there particular edits that you feel inappropriate. By coincidence, this article has become interesting to me recently - I'm not stalking you! Bardcom (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Hu12, is it OK to revert some or all of your edits on the Mule (Software) page? If I understood your reasons to undo the previous edits, I'd make sure that the same mistake was avoided this time... Bardcom (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its reverted, error on my part. thanks Bardcom--Hu12 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamford

I had really hoped this user would just give up and leave, but it seems he hasn't, good call by you. My bad for not blocking longer sooner. MBisanz talk 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's said for days he's leaving, yet he stays and trolls. Would be a completely different scenario if he "wanted" to work with others and learn. It is sad.--Hu12 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I just saw the huge list of IPs and his attacks. This bad cop is not learning and after the 48h will likely be right back at it. I expect that this will next go to an indefinite block and a month or so of semi-protection on all the pages he's interested in and full protection on his account talk pages. This would give him time to loose interest and find something else to do (i.e. somewhere else to do it). If such a discussion occurs on an/i or elsewhere, please let me know and I'll comment. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
It really should be The Common Sense Barnstar. You are a user who sees through the bureaucracy of Wikipedia and does what is right and logical. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Hu12 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You know the rest :) --Herby talk thyme 11:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hi Hu12! Thanks for nominating me, and I'll try to live up to your kind words. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved, you wil be a great sysop! Oh yeah, try not to block yourself (its tempting)..LOL--Hu12 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unprotect Monitor Group discussion page

Hi, I was just wondering if you could unprotect the discussion page [6]. I think you originally protected it because the article was deleted but it has since been recreated. 216.80.64.153 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

message

Hi, are you from USSR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.10.78 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Archive

While the link may be spam in some articles, it isn't in the 32 County Sovereignty Movement or Saoirse articles. For these two particular articles, it holds a comprehensive back issue archive of publications of two Irish political parties which aren't even available on the websites of the organisations themselves. [http ://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2FSNation See here] and [http ://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2FIrishNews here] for details. While spam cleanup is important, if regular editors of the articles who are familiar with that link (I've used it for cites previously in other articles) say the link belongs, it isn't really good form to repeatedly revert them including the use of rollback. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But its a good link... These are Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis spam socks that are adding them, which makes it spam. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu. It is not the content of the links that interest me by the time it has got to this stage. Links to this site are repeatedly added by WP:SPA WP:COI accounts and IP's. The rationale for placing the links becomes quite secondary to the behaviour. that being said, you want it there and thats good enough for me.--Hu12 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware it's originally spam. I'm just saying that if the normal editors of an article have evaluated it, and found it to be an appropriate link (which it is for those two articles) it's bad form to class every occurence of the link as spam and edit war with them over its inclusion. The first removal is fine, but if you encounter resistance from regular, experienced editors of the article it's time to re-evaluate. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming "edit war" is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the disruptive editing policy. You and I were the only editors since its insertion yesterday. I see no evidence that it was ever discussed on the talk page. The rationale for placing the links becomes quite secondary to the behaviour when that behavior violates site policies such as WP:NOT, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:SOCK.--Hu12 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem intent on somehow justifying edit warring with an experienced editor including the misuse of admin rollback - so be it. The "policies" you have just pointed to are irrelevant. I have no WP:COI in adding that link back, and neither is there any violation of WP:SOCK in me adding that link back. For WP:SPAM to come into play, there would have to be a violation of WP:EL. Exactly which part of WP:EL do you think applies to the link in those particular articles? Which part of WP:NOT do you think applies to the link in those particular articles? What's this "disruptive editing policy" you're referring to? Exact link to it please. The actions of the original editor don't apply to me - I properly evaluated the link on a case by case basis and found its inclusion to be appropriate in those two articles. You then blindly reverted me, abusing admin rollback in the process, all under the banner of a non-existent "disruptive editing policy". One Night In Hackney303 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you engaging in an edit war for inclusion when you clearly did not attempt to contact me? My last revision was 18:20, 21 February 2008, you messsage was placed 18:44, 21 February 2008. So don't play the "Admin abuse" card, when there was clear abuse here. After your post here I replied "you want it there and thats good enough for me'. Abuse? - did I revert after this discussion - NO!
If you infact properly evaluated the link on a case by case basis and found its inclusion to be appropriate, you must lightning fast;
(cur) (last) 18:10, 21 February 2008 One Night In Hackney (Talk | contribs | block)
(cur) (last) 18:09, 21 February 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs | block) (undo)
I see no evidence that this was ever discussed on the talk page. Any way, I was editing based on linksearch and the spam account contribs, in which the page came up as having the link, so your speedy reversions (see above) kept it on the list, it never registered as having been removed already, thus my unknowing multiple reverts. As I said before you want it there, thats good enough for me. The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, which you did only after engaging in an edit war.--Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link was added two days ago, I evaluated it then. It's a link I'm more than familiar with in regards to hosting of document archives, for example here is an edit from August 2007 where I added it as a cite for information I added. There isn't a discussion on the talk page because the link was added, I evaluated it, found it to be appropriate, and left it in the article. One Night In Hackney303 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this whole discussion. If these are good and valuable links, and the few that I've seen certainly appear to be, what difference on earth does it make who added them? How exactly do they qualify as spam? -- Zsero (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I'm trying to make. Even if the original spammer is in breach of COI, SPAM etc etc, if an experienced editor adds it back that ceases to be the case. One Night In Hackney303 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As explained, any experience editor contacts another person before engaging in an edit war, the diffs of your "after the fact" attempt to contact are noted above. I've explained why I didn't see your reverts, whats your excuse?--Hu12 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu. Spam Advertising is prohibited (commercial or otherwise). In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links.. factor these together - and the big picture shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. This is the essense of spamming.--Hu12 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't see my revert? Really? Honestly? One Night In Hackney303 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Must mean admin abuse, right?--Hu12 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Means you're not being entirely truthful. If you didn't see my edit, how did you manage to roll it back? One Night In Hackney303 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grab a hold of that and run with it, make sure to wave the abuse flag too. BTW revert and revert(s) are distincly different.--Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, I'll keep my powder dry. Rest assured it'll be used at the most inconvenient moment for you. One Night In Hackney303 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And your WP:POINT, will be sure to arise at that time...--Hu12 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, learn the value of your cards before attempting to play them. This isn't the first time you've been called out on your actions, and it won't be the last. A couple of months down the line, a defence of "look at him disrupting Wikipedia to make a point two months ago" doesn't mitigate your own behaviour, and it won't result in anything happening to me, especially when people see your conduct in this very conversation. No block, nothing, see the blocking policy if you don't believe me. One Night In Hackney303 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to me to have a very warped view of what spam is. None of these links are advertising or "promoting" anything. They are themselves valuable additions to Wikipedia. If someone has a genuinely valuable resource, why shouldn't they tell people about it?
I have reviewed Ashleylmack's contributions, and every single one seems exactly on point, appropriate, and valuable. I see no reason to suppose that the user is not in fact a real person, Ashley L Mack, who is either a student or librarian at IUPUI, or perhaps just an outsider who has discovered the archive and is enthusiastic about it, and wants to contribute to the Wikipedia project by adding these links. It seems to me that you have defamed this person and owe her(?) an apology. -- Zsero (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reviewed the contributions of Stephena. This editor added two links to Wikipedia, 17 months ago! Do you seriously believe he was part of some long-term spam project? What's more, both links were completely on-topic and must be valuable resources to those who are interested in those topics. I see no reason at all to doubt that Stephen A. is a real person whom you have defamed, and to whom you owe an apology. -- Zsero (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on to Klpalmer, who made one contribution, 18 months ago! How can you possibly accuse Mr or Ms Palmer of spamming? -- Zsero (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious. Without even evaluating the content (admitted above) Hu12 classes it as spam, therefore anyone who has ever added a link to it is an evil spammer. One Night In Hackney303 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sanborn Maps - so one university's link there is spam? What about the university links you left to....
  • Browse Sanborn Maps of Missouri, University of Missouri - Columbia
  • Browse Sanborn Maps of Florida, University of Florida Library
  • Browse Sanborn Maps of Utah, University of Utah Library
  • Browse Sanborn Maps of South Carolina, University of South Carolina Library's Digital Collections Page
  • Browse Sanborn maps of Alabama, University of Alabama Map Library
  • 1922 maps of State College, Pennsylvaniaat Pennsylvania State University
  • 1890 maps of Hallowell, Kennebec Co., Maine and 1907 Sanborn insurance maps of Frankfort, Franklin Co., Kentucky at DavidRumsey.com
  • Sanborn maps of Georgia at the Digital Library of Georgia
Hardly a consistent approach is it? One Night In Hackney303 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On to 134.68.172.247. I noticed that you only reverted two of this IP's edits. I've gone through the entire contribution history and every single edit seems to be valid. Not one single instance of an even questionable edit, ever. For an IP address registered to a college, that must be some kind of record! Rather than an accusation of spamming, the IP should get some kind of medal for good behaviour! -- Zsero (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter--being appropriate, (etc.) doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true, especialy when the spamming is sourcing from the "University Information Technology Services " address--Hu12 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not spam. It's called contributing to Wikipedia, something we're all supposed to be doing.
I've now reviewed the last of your accused spammers. Special/Contributions:134.68.173.135, and once again found nothing amiss. One edit was probably inadvisable - a link about Indiana architecture is quite proper in Architecture of the United States, but probably not in Architecture. Still, that's not spamming, it's just an editing decision with which I disagree. For a new editor, it's not bad.
In sum, every one of your accused spammers seems to be nothing of the kind. Where did you get the idea that any of these links were spam? You seem to have flown off in a huff of supposition and defamed good contributors. You ought to visit each of their talk pages and apologise for your earlier accusation. -- Zsero (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have the phone number to the Universities "Information Technology Services " department?.. I'll be happy to "apologise" to them about there misguided and promotional use of Wikipedia. Fairly confident it will take speaking to one person (webmaster) to cover them all.--Hu12 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have no basis for assuming that Stephen A and K L Palmer, both of whom were editing in mid-2006, are the same person as Ashley L Mack who is active today. Nor do you know anything about who at the university used those two IPs, or how many people did so, except that they've all been very well behaved and contributed to Wikipedia. So you owe an apology on each talk page to which you posted the defamation. Their edits were all useful and appropriate, no matter what position each of them may have or have had at the university or its library. Even if they were all library employees (an assumption for which you have no basis) their actions would still be completely appropriate and to be welcomed rather than criticised. -- Zsero (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone far enough. You have no right to restore your defamation to the talk pages of five innocent editors. They have so far behaved as model Wikipedians, and you have no right to accuse them of spamming. -- Zsero (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu, I think this merely the side effects of your excellent work in spam fighting, which is the mainstay of WPs efforts there: you have come to regard everything coming from an organisation as spam, and everything from anyone with COI as spam, and everything contributed in large amounts as spam--even when it is relevant and worthwhile. The point is to build an encyclopedia in a positive sense, as well as keeping out the immense amounts of garbage. These groups of edits seems almost entirely appropriate. A link from a state university library to unique or rare material dealing with that state is relevant, done is reasonable moderation, no matter who adds it. Spam Advertising is prohibited; adding relevant material is encouraged. DGG (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help and Advice

Hi Hu12, I'm still learning, and I'd like some advice. The CEP Vendors list AfD debate helped me understand the difference between a good encyclopedic article, and a list of companies promoting the fact that they sell a type of software. But it's a thin line sometimes, and I'm trying to understand at what point a list article like this can have enough encyclopedic content to count. I'm currently debating another deletion - although this time I've nominated the article for deletion - and the debate appears to be pretty much at the same point where the CEP Vendors debate ended up. Except for one point. It seems that Wikipedia allows lists, so the question is, at what point does a list become a useful encyclopedic article. Your guidance would be appreciated. Bardcom (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Any idea why the site here was BL'd? Obviously not looged & I couldn't find it in the spam project easily either. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asside fron the IP requesting having added a few, I've found verry little. No adsense match or cross wiki. heres the diff where it was added [7].--Hu12 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

  1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
  2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
  3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
  4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
  5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 February edit to "The Hair the TV the Baby and the Band"

What did you make that revert for? And you're an admin but don't know better than to mark that "minor"? It doesn't fit any of the criterea, it says that rollback feature you can use is meant for vandalism. -- AvatarMN (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<achem> Never mind. I read the editor's talk page. Going away now. -- AvatarMN (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential WP:EL issue

As you were previously slightly involved with the discussion, and as you were the only admin previously involved (and therefore likely the most experienced editor to have an opinion on that discussion), I was hoping you could take another look at Puget Sound Mosquito Fleet. Based on the earlier discussion at Talk:Puget_Sound_Mosquito_Fleet#Article_Linkfarm, the primary author of the article had removed the majority of the external links in this edit. However, the author is now re-creating those external links, but this time placing them throughout the article rather than in their own section as before, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for examples.

I attempted to address it in the talk page, and the authors reply was to debate symantics rather than the issue. Please advise if you feel that I should be taking this to WP:RFC or WP:3O (I'm not very familiar with those forums, so still learning how/when they should be used). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excess linking?

Can you please refer to a problem I am finding in the Pinball article? I do not want to engage in WP:OWN but it seems like there are too many links there. I tried to scale back to something more reasonable but there is someone else who insists they be there. Thank you, Felix the Hurricane (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of those links, are absolutely in line with the External links policy and What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY). Ive reverted further--Hu12 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The links were restored by Lhammer610, who also started a discussion on external links and repair (at the top of the talk page rather than the bottom, so I almost missed it myself). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help but I still see the same ownership issues taking place, I feel that perhaps the person who keeps adding these links simply does not understand how the guidelines and policies regarding these changes are actually carried out in practice and hope that we can come to a resolution soon. Thank you again for your assistance. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been noticing the website "www.quasimodobell.com" showing up in numerous music related articles. It's one of those typical low-grade fansites that try and free run their links onto Wiki. It has no real value... adds nothing to the project. And yet it has quietly found it's way into 250 wiki-pages. Nothing major mass spamming. Just sneaky "slip-ins" here and there. Is it worth a blacklist? 156.34.208.218 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up. Further investigation revield these results. 225 accounts used in this spam campaign. --Hu12 (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for making all the extra work for you... but thanks for the tremendous cleanup! As I quietly, anonymously, plug away at reverting vandalism here(over 30000 anon edits and climbing) I come across the occasional situation similar the the quasimodobell "spam-creep". Should I find another one (and I am sure I will)... can I alert you to it directly or should I post it at the spam project talk page? In 4+ years of editing I have grown weary of using AiV/ANI boards as I find them to be slow and too abundant with "wheel-spinning". I have lots of admin acquaintances that are familiar with 156.34 (nicknamed Libs by Bubba Hotep and Wiki alf)... I just find that it's quicker to go straight to an admin familiar with "users/situations/history" because the wiki-fix gets done with a lot more efficiency. If you prefer I post at the main spam project page that's certainly OK too. I can see you're busy enough as it is. Thanks again and have a nice day! "Libs" 156.34.220.185 (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam would certainly be the preffered place to post (lots of eyes), however feel free to drop me note that you've found something. Keep up the fine work! --Hu12 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aretha Franklin / quasimodobell

"its blacklisted spam" - a) Oh? I didn't know there was a blacklist. Where can I find this blacklist? b) Why is it spam?
As I referred you, it appears to be a useful and informative resource. Can you explain why it's not?
Thanks in anticipation of your enlightening reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

227 Spam accounts were used in this spam campaign for 2 years. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Slow down cowboy. You know what you're talking about, but I don't.
How about giving kindergaarten level answers to the questions I asked? Please? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ERP Vendors

Hi Hu12, any chance you could give your opinion on this please? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ERP vendors Bardcom (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ERP vendors is idealy what the CEP page should have been. Much weight can be given to lists that adhere to the WP:WTAF, as it provides the intended function of a list unlike List of CEP vendors. The arguments of POINT are concerning, however I don't feel that was your intent. --Hu12 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, I've just finished reading WP:WTAF and I don't see the relevance. It says that a list shouldn't be written to contain red links. The CEP page didn't have any red links, and it was a similar table with sortable columns, etc. I can't remember specifics because I can't access the old deleted article any more. But CEP Vendors was deleted because it violated REPOSITORY and DIR specifically. Isn't the ERP vendors list the same (and other List of XX Vendor articles)? If not, what specifically is the difference in your opinion? If there is a difference, I'd like to understand it. If there isn't a difference, fine, we'll have to try to understand how to better qualify lists of this type. Bardcom (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put some other background info on Wikidemo's Talk Page here. Thanks - I appreciat the time/advice. Bardcom (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ping? Any appetite for this? Bardcom (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editabuselinks}}

Do you mind if I bump the Spam reporting link to where deletion policy is? Spam reporting is more important, but right now its creating a lot of extra blank space. MBisanz talk 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, format it to fit however you like.. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better fit, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:A. B.#Talk:Asia (band).

Replied. · AndonicO Hail! 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You know what I'm talking about, n.n Daedalus (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In case you don't.. I'm refering to your answer to a troll earlier by saying that you are ready to block college IPs from editing, unless they create an account, and even then.. well, we all know those can be blocked. I'm glad I was right about that being possible. Being wrong in the face of a troll wouldn't sit right. Daedalus (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing incorrect warnings

According to B, incorrect warnings may be removed by anyone. Do you really disagree, and if so what is your source? -- Zsero (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the IP 72.10.122.201 edited Wotring3's comment, If you feel the resulting warning was inapropriate, better practice would be to bring it up on the issuers (User:Ale jrb) talk page. Removing False or bad-faith placing of warnings, that do not meet such warning criteria would be an exception. --Hu12 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right, I got confused with a different vandal IP that had been reversed on that page, and whose edit was marginally not vandalism. Sometimes these IPs all run into each other! <emily-litella-mode>Never mind.</emily-litella-mode> -- Zsero (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation I started on Wiki alf's talk page

I started this conversation on Admin Wiki alf's talk page... I am just bringing it to your attention as it is 'up your wiki-alley'. Do we have to re-apply to get the link kiboshed? Thanks, Libs 156.34.226.160 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey libs, was there an origional report?--Hu12 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to User:XLinkBot, which should revert when added in the future--Hu12 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was back in July of last year that Alfie put the request over to the Shadowbot page.(whew!... seems like 12000 edits ago... wait!... it was :-D ). Did the Shadowbot blacklist NOT carry over to Xlinkbot? 156.34.226.160 (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it wasn't carried over, I have found the origional AntiSpamBot approved request --Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User name blocks

Hi. I saw Leading edge group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), whom you had blocked for a user name, on CAT:RFU. You had blocked this user with autoblock, blocking account creation, and email blocked. Unless the username is trolling/harassing, there's no reason to do that. Disabling email stops the user from being able to email you for help. (MediaWiki:Blockedtext tells the blocked user that they can email you and a novice user might find email easier than using an unblock template.) Using autoblock/prevent account creation stops the user from simply logging out and creating a new name. That's what we want them to do anyway and MediaWiki:Blockedtext even suggests that as an alternative to waiting for a rename. --B (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks B--Hu12 (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FreeLife‎

Regarding your edit to FreeLife, I'd asked for some help with the situation Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_22#FreeLife. Could you explain your edit on the talk page, and maybe help Freelifelegal understand the situation better? --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! While I'm concerned that he hasn't changed his username, I think he's done a good job of bringing up his concerns on the talk page. He must be pretty frustrated that he's getting no response. I wish I had more time to help. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamford?

see Special:Contributions/90.205.89.172. WHOIS says Brighton. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out my recent edit at Algorithmic trading

User:Hu12 and User:Ronnotel

Please check out my recent addition to Algorithmic trading dif [8]

I actually inserted the text from an advertisement into the article. This is obviously sensitive and should be checked in any case, but I think it makes a key point in the article that no other source could make as well. I'm not trying to push Dow Jones, just document the content of the article.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine and works well in that instance. Source link? --Hu12 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the quote, but kept the reference (i.e. toned it down) trying to follow Ronnotel's suggestion. Since it's an ad, it's not so easy to get a direct link(!). Smallbones (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question for you... On the Creedence Clearwater Revival article there was a single link in the band infobox and external links section for www.creedence-online.net. "Official" websites for bands that have been disbanded for many years, like CCR, certainly do exist. But I have browsed though this page and can find no disclaimers for authorisation/offical status for the site. Fansites get spammed into article external links sections all the time. But this site was also in the article infobox which is set aside for 'official links'. This website has an awful lot of commercial swag to sell for a site that seems to have no official status. There has been no edit war for including the website.... yet.... since it has quietly sat there unnoticed for awhile... until I came along and turfed it :D . In my opinion after 4 years I have many opinions about certain things :D fansites are ABSOLUTELY useless and serve no purpose here. WP:EL says don't knwoing link to any site that may contain copyvio... and most fansites are abundant with copyright violations... I simply don't like 'em. I read them... but if I really want to find one... I Google it. I don't think they should be allowed here (unless they are authorised by the band/artist themselves... and a rare few actually are) If the CCR site turns out to be a legit page then that's OK. But I can't find anything on it to say it IS legit. If you have the time could you browse through it and see if it's a keeper? Appreciate any assistance! Have a nice day! 156.34.226.160 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added by 172.194.137.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) No indication that this is the official site--Hu12 (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't look too official. Sells T-shirts and other unauthorised swag. Been there since 2005. Hmmm. I am ashamed... I've been here longer then that. I should have caught it sooner. Maybe I actually slept on that day :D . Thanks for your input! 156.34.226.160 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted

Hey this edit [9] seems to suggest that the site is blacklisted- the bit of news it is reporting in this case is very much valid and there is no spam involved in this. What is this blacklisted for ? Haphar (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [10]. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have your X links attention can I tap your brain for another opinion? I promise I'll leave you alone afterwards... maybe :D . The Guitar article is a magnet for spam. And the current ext. links section in lengthy. Some appear OK some appear NGno good Here is the quick link [11]. When you have a minute could you browse and perhap hoover the section out a bit. My leaning for most Wiki pages is to simply delete en-masse and then wait for the whiners to get all b*t*hy. Your tactics may likely be more wiki-tactful :D. Thanks and have a nice day!. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS... the Electric guitar article is also a spam magnet. Right now it's not so bad... the guitar one is larger and likely more spammy. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rouge admins

I consider your restoration of this category disruption. The only reason I have not speedied this as G4 is because it would be wheel warring. Now please, I'd love to hear a reason for why you think it is acceptable to restore this without a DRV. There was a valid UCFD resulting in delete, and nothing has changed since then. I highly encourage you to re-delete this ASAP. VegaDark (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a category, categories have catagories (such as [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of <Insert name>]] needs to be under ( Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets ) ..Delete if you like, but remove those under the category. No wheel war here, its a category that remains from a sloppy closure. It fails re deletion under WP:CSD#g4 as its not substantially identical to the deleted version. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it appears as if I misunderstood your reason for restoration (which I am glad to see was in good faith), however this still needs to be deleted. I disagree that this is not substantially similar, as the content of the category does not necessarily have to be similar, only the intent of the category's existence. In either case, the only reason the users within are there is because they re-added themselves to the category after deletion. There is currently (unfortunately) no policy about users doing that, so there is nothing to stop them. VegaDark (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category page isn't similar, but a category doesn't just consist of its page. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:09, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Also if I might add, this isn't simply recreation of deleted material. This is an administrative restoration of the complete history of a deleted page. That goes directly against the uCfD decision. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:13, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the CSD tag is being passed over, and since you have decided not to re-delete the category based on your belief that it doesn't meet the criteria, I've started a short thread for opinions on WP:AN/I. Avruch T 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, categories are deleted first and then a bot comes by and cleans out the pages afterwards. Undeleting just because there are still pages in the category interferes with this procedure. —Random832 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove users from this category. Users who have the category on their userpage now are aware that the category has been deleted, and choose to use it anyway. Ral315 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:162.115.236.120

Thanks for the block? How did you locate the user? Was it via Luna by any chance? Enigma msg! 08:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YW, his page is on the watch list. --Hu12 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed this external link from Angelina Jolie yesterday. I'm not quite sure why you think it violates WP:EL? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not touch my user page

I have every right to have a redlinked category on my user page. Do not remove it again. FCYTravis (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up @ Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_4#Category:Rouge_admins. --Hu12 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to. It's a redlink. It's staying. FCYTravis (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - I love my redlink. Please respect its authoritah. Neıl ☎ 09:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hu12 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, please don't edit my userpage to remove something I added myself just days before. [12] Thank you kindly. Sarah 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 240 edit

Hey Why did you remove the Peter Greenberg Link from the Rule 240 section? He is the person who brought it into common knowledge. I added the link, forgive me for not having a UN then, because more people know Rule 240 from him, than otherwise. The current top article is not as informative and was written March 4, 2008 significantly after the fact of the other articles. I will be editing that one off as an attempt to gain links.

Mpalmer22 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, according to External links policy are Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however, the consumerist is a blog as well and isn't primarily focused around traffic. I understand External links policy in that it is ok to ad a link to a blog if it is relevant. That article is very relevant to the topic.

Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines, then look at the Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material". I don't think this link meets the inclusion guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is the direct quote from the Reliable Sources policy. Peter Greenberg is on the Today Show, and in addition to his personal information, has a team of people working to verify his accuracy. He may not be a scholarly source, but he is a relaible and trusted source within the Travel Industry and has been an active member in the industry for more than 25 years. What else needs to be done to prove his reliability? He has a wikipedia entry.

rule240.net is a blog, has no registration info, cites other news stories such as "Read the full story at MSNBC", and no indication its peters, and even if it is peters (needs verifying), it might qualify to be on Peter Greenberg only.--Hu12 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is rule240.net? I have done nothing with that. Unless I'm wrong, which could very well be possible, you deleted this article *Rule 240 Explained by Peter Greenberg from *PeterGreenberg.com The thing I'm confused about is why or how the link to that article was deleted. Did I miss something?

Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be external link related only.--Hu12 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean the content isn't relevant. Neutrality doesn't even apply here. By reviewing my posts, and not looking at the content of the article, you are not being neutral. You are applying a bias towards my links, assuming they are spam, when, if you were being neutral, you should be reading the article and determining whether or not it was relevant, not assuming that what I am doing is spam based on past performance. I made a mistake and thought that I could publish guides on here since they are relevant to a topic. I have been punished for trying to add a contribution in the best way that I know how. Since, I am not an expert, but I have access to expert testimony and feel like it would benefit wikipedia I tried to add it. It got removed. Let me get this straight, you removed a link to a credible source, based on my past history (which unbeknownst to you, I am trying to rectify).

No assumption, in feb you were adding one every few minutes, and is called Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming. Perhaps if you create a dialogue on the relevent articles talk page, get others input ect, this would help build consensus for including a reference. Links added to an article do not add content or meaning, and your encouraged to add content instead of links.--Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HUG.

You're welcome. · AndonicO Hail! 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! (eo)

Thanks for your help in removing spam from the Esperanto Wikipedia. If you need any favors or help there, please let me know! (I'm an eo-admin.) Regards, Yekrats (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great to Know, I've requested Meta Blacklist of that link, you can view the local report Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#legambientecorato.it.--Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the help sorting the mission grounds thing. --BozMo talk 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with whitelisting

Hello Hu12, I hope you are doing well. I was referred to a discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_28#Blacklist_of_digitpress and was hoping you could be of assistance. I am linking to a specific reference which is located at digitpress and it has recently been blacklisted by the spam filter. Could you please whitelist the specific link that is located at the Cuttle Cart page? I would like to retain that reference if at all possible. I thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All set, Its whitelisted. Thanks for the note.--Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page, it is appreciated. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this edit out

An intersting SPAM threat if you ask me. What do you think? 156.34.231.56 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my thought on that.. --Hu12 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that means it's heading into the black?
While I have your attention. Does the blacklist cover all inter-wikis or just the en-wiki? Reason I ask... a very long time ago I did a cleanup of a Led Zeppelin fansite link which was repeatedly added across many pages by a dynamic IP range. I asked Wiki alf for some advice/assistance on it... the website owner eavesdropped the conversation and basically said "go ahead and delete it... I will just keep adding it". I did a cross-wiki search on all 57 wiks and found the guy's link on all kinds of inter-wikis. SO... being the good Wikipedian that I am... I removed them all :) . Now, every week or so, I use the cross wiki search to find where he's been and clean him out. THANK JEBUS! that all Wikipedia's use the same button structure :) . I can't read Japanese, Korean etc... but I have a couple dozen edits on just about every Wiki in every language going just so I can rm this el vio. The user even tried masking his website by using a # & % type character string embedded into the link. Thankfully the crosswiki search still finds the original URL. The website is www.vjez.com. I just did a "global spam clean" the other day. And, as you can see from the latest crosswiki search, The world is still pretty much clean of him. But by next week... he will have spammed a dozen Wikis with his link. Is there any way to blacklist that site Wiki-globally? It would save my tired old fingers some work every work. :) . Although I don't mind serving Wiki in this way. The spammer didn't know just who it was he was p*ssing off when he made his threat eh? :-D 156.34.231.56 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a global blacklist which is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. --Hu12 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would the vjez link qualify for a global "f**k o*f" on that blacklist? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other question... even though I am just a lowly ol' anon IP... is it still OK for me to "clan up" with the Spam Project and put a template on my user page. Or would I be shunned and boo'd because of my "non-account" stance. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To qualify for the global blacklist (or local for that matter) one needs to demonstrate that there has been abuse, document the abuse, provide the IP's and accounts associated with the abuse and provide diffs to the abuse( specificly for a global listing is providing diffs to the abuse over multiple Wikimedia Foundation wikis). If you look at the global BL talk page, you'll get the idea. A link search does not prove vjez was spammed over multiple wikis, as much of wikipedia content gets transcluded from one wiki to another. You'd have to go and look, document where it was added and by whom. As far as a template, IP's, unfortunatly are not considered userpages, someone will most likely remove it. I'm sure you have your reasons, but you should create an account. Wish you did have an account, because I wanted to give you a barnstar for the "sneaky external link" you reported to me earlier. --Hu12 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a user page... User:156.34.142.110. When I am roaming around the University from 1 faculty library to the next... my IP changes a lot. When I am at my desk... like I am now... my IP ... 156.34.142.110 is static... mine and mine alone. If you want to take a peek I already have several barnstars for who I am and what I do. I am also a member of a Wiki Project related to music and it's project template sits on my user page. I even have a sandbox and a talk page archives sandbox. If you need to contact me... I watch this Static IP page no matter what part of the planet I am in/on :D. Thanks for the info above.... seems like a real pain to doc all the spam history. I can just my wekely global cleanups a lot faster than I could document the history behind it. :D . Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, add the template! Left a comment on "your" talk page..;)--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you do ever decide to take an account, you don't need to change much. for example have a look at Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven (talk · contribs) his/her sig is 69.49.44.11 ...--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the token of appreciation. I have been down the account road before. After rolling over 20000 edits with it... and watching a growing anti-anon movement at the same time... I decided that if Wikipedia was going to be the encyclopedia "anyone can edit"... then I was going to be "an anyone". I turned down over a dozen RfA prompts when I had my account. I've said it right from the start... no lofty goals... just a humble editor... and I don't need an account to do that. Over 30000 edits as an anonymous IP later... no regrets. I am who I am. Quietly editing in the "purity" of anonymity. Thanks again for the 'shiny'. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the owner of vjez.com and I'ld like to talk privately about all this nonsense. Is there any way? (go to my site, there's an email link). I tried to ask what was wrong, in the beginning, about my site and nobody told me (I read the rules several times, too). So I need more infos. I hate to be considered a spammer: I did one of the most interesting and important Zeppelin site (that's what the master of the official LZ site told me + many more) and it's considered a spam ... Cool! --79.30.201.171 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ukinvest.gov.uk

I have taken up the spamming of these sites up with UK Trade and Industry. I have a role as a non-exec in Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform which gives me some chance but it isn't acceptable for a gov to behave in this way (albeit perhaps inadvertently). --BozMo talk 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leting me know. Thought that was a little odd for a gov, but hopefully it can be sorted out. Keep me updated.--Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sent you an email with more details. Pretty much sorted I think. --BozMo talk 11:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftesbury page

Thank you so much for locking it! These people just simply will not engage in rational discussion because they know they have only commercial gains. Thank you for protecting consensus. --Curuxz (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the "new IP" assaulting the page is a result of 86.130.11.251's recent block. --Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re - talk:Iar

Now to give Your talk-page some action!

  1. WP:WIARM has had considerable support for some time, and is a robust well-written document.
  2. The NbgDraft is essentially the "12words" plus WIARM, and I am glad that you approve, with others.
  3. "Understanding IAR" has a lot of support ( and I like it), and, a catchy title.
  4. I am happy to see a debate between competing essays for the prize of going up on the IAR page.
  5. Of course, many will want JUST the "12words".
  6. u:Misza13 has commented along the lines of "you're wasting your breath".
  7. I am happy for this process to continue, having "fresh eyes" at the discussion page has been very helpful.
  8. I hope that it is not seen , totally, as MY proposal, it is a generic proposal, and I would welcome others to run with the ball.
  9. Any improvements, comments, etc. heartily welcomed, (though, if it drifted from WIARM, it would lose it's main advantage).
  10. For now, I am leaning to UIAR, but the prior "consensus-support" for WIARM may be a deciding factor, or not.
  11. My computer is from Noah's Ark, sorry if I a little slow on the update, sometimes.

Cheers, and thanks for visiting talk:Newbyguesses, it was a ball. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have drafted over the 'provisional draft' to be 'live' at Wikipedia:No firm rules. Is it worthwhile for discussion to take place at Wikipedia talk:No firm rules, I prefer centralized discussion at IAR. Cheers, let me know if there's any problemo's --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this? --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of archiving/reorganising at talk:IAR, currently (232,124 bytes) --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that all "merge" considerations can be addressed by adding the 12words in at the top of WIARM, instead of the current 'motto'. In effect, the DRAFT. That is, the DRAFT would in that case supercede WIARM, (hubris comes before a fluff). Then, the See also section on WP:IAR can get cleaned up as well, I think. Are you getting this, or am I off-base? --Newbyguesses - Talk 09:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, adding 12words to WIARM may solve this.--Hu12 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from that, the "merge" debate concerning WIARM and UNDERSTANDING is off-track then. The correct "Merge" debate concerns *merging* WIARM with IAR, is that the go? --Newbyguesses - Talk 11:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the WIARM edit is wholy seperate. The IAR merge into WIARM is the debate on IAR. Yes they look similar, but they are seperate. Don't confuse them or edit them as the same. I just made an edit to an essay (WIARM), thats all.--Hu12 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside that I am a bit groggy, been unwell and not on top of the "merge" debate, compare and compare these. --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this and the other edit have eliminated ONE confusing merge debate. --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slowly, but seems there is progress--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slowly, yes. Now does this look good? The "provisional draft" has not changed much, but it needed a workshop page, I think. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want something useful to do?

What's this nonsense all about? User:VigilancePrime/Archives/Gallery Vegetationlife (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, I can't remove awfulplasticsurgery.com and cosmeticsurgery.com links from Lip enhancement article because I get a spam notification page about plasticsurgery.org links (which is a reference). While I think the links I want to remove are spam related (along with plasticsurgery.com and before/after photo blogs and physician referral "associations" ), I'm not sure how to deal with this particular edit. Flowanda | Talk 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All set, just removed the http portion of the ref link. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...is it just me and my new Lazik eyes, or do you look 10 years' fresher? Flowanda | Talk 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway for you to... en masse... rm the link to www.digitaldreamdoor.com. This is, essentially, a personal website for music and the website own has compiled his personal opinions into "best-of" lists which, in turn, have been used incorrectly on Wiki as a reliable reference... which it isn't. The site is also a link for sound sample and lyrics and other WP:EL vios. By my last search it appears 118 times on EN-Wiki. Whenever I come across it I take the time to rm it. Do you have the quicky-cleany-uppy tool to rm the links in one quick whoosh? 156.34.231.56 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have the same tools as you. Look in the history and find who added it.. then remove. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, at 118 adds it was probably stuffed in by 118 different people. I was actually surprised that there weren't more of them. I will just continue with what I am doing... deleting them as I see them. I should be done in about 5 years. I'll let you know when I am through. :D Thanks and have a nice day! 156.34.231.56 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at a few of the pages, and they were god faith additions, however doesn't mean they all were. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Asia Prez".

Good blocks, we've had enough spider from him. · AndonicO Hail! 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wise old admin advice needed

Hey, advisor on admin matters! Gregor Mendel is in need of semi-protection again due to IP vandalism. See Talk:Gregor Mendel#Semi-protection again.3F. Since I have made content edits to the page, am I too involved to semi-protect it? There are practically no good-faith IP contributors, unfortunately. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection due to heavy or obvious vandalism, would never be considered a conflict. If it is a content dispute or edit warring over content your involved with or added, then you want an outside and univolved opinion. Simply having had edited the page in the past, or it being on your watchlist should not be an conflict. I support your decision to protect the page, be sure to add a protection template to the page (I prefer {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} ). --Hu12 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. I did the semi-protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble, any time. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Why did you do this? http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Orange_juice&diff=196989600&oldid=196958577 Graevemoore (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error, however your edit here, was not reverting vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not. But I want to know what made you revert my edit in the first place. I would like to know (In a neutral sense; strip the idiomatic connotation) what you were thinking when you did it. Graevemoore (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What to do in case of persistent 'occasional' vandalism?

You blocked 76.169.219.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) for the first time a bit over a week ago.

09:54, 1 March 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs) blocked "76.169.219.16 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

If you check their contributions they have a extensive track record, and only with the article Romano's Macaroni Grill‎. They came back today and the mass deletion didn't get noticed for awhile. So... if a 24 hour block didn't phase them (indeed, they probably didn't notice if they waited a week), what next?

BTW: do people ever publish their watchlists, just for the humor of the strange combinations therein, like Macaroni Grill and Yam? Shenme (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your 2 weeks ought to clue them in that they _can_ be blocked if they continue. Thanks. Shenme (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should catch their attention and is preffered to protecting the page. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi Hu12. I have been asked a few times (which is always kind of flattering so thank you for asking :) but I'm fairly reluctant. I feel like this is kind of a selfish attitude but RFA looks like a lot of hassle and grief for very little return to me. Not to mention that adminship seems to be a fairly thankless role (so thank you btw - I do appreciate your efforts). If there was a shortage of admins I'd be willing to to help the project (I nearly applied when we were having difficulty getting action on the blacklist but fortunately others stepped in). But at the moment if I need something doing that needs admin tools I just ask and it seems like there's normally someone around. -- SiobhanHansa 09:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested

An editor has been repeatedly adding a link to www.cityoflakewood.org on the Lakewood, Washington‎ article, in violation of WP:COI and WP:EL, and against the consensus of other editors on the relevant talk page (first added late January, but did not escalate to edit warring until last week). As his edit patterns under multiple IPs had already violated 3RR once, I was preparing to build a case to either request short-term blocks on the IPs/user-ID involved for edit warring, or maybe request semi-protection of the article. However, today the user also added the link www.cityofdupont.org to the DuPont, Washington article. This second site is basically the same site, just modified for the other city. The additions of these links are clear self-promotion to me; but as it has spread to another site now, I'm not sure if I should be reporting the links to either WP:WPSPAM or even WP:SBL (I'm uncertain as to the threshold for those).

I would appreciate any advice/guidance that you could provide on these. For reference, here are the URLs and user links:

Accounts:

Thanks in advance for any pointers you can provide on how to proceed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive range blocked 24.19.93.0/24 for edit warring, and reported Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#City_of..spam. If It continues we can lock down the article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I hadn't been anticipating you taking immediate action, just pointing me to the appropriate next step at this stage. As you did act, I've taken note of those actions so that I can use it as guidance if/when I encounter comparable situations in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also added (as I'm sure you saw) the info in the discussion thread. The user is sure to see it, and hopefully it will result in discussion as opposed to warring. Thanks for letting me know. --Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12 (talk), I see you reverted my removal of the libel at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:DarkFalls#User:Bettwice33, could you explain why you permit such statements as: "As a background, this person has a long history of psychotic behaviour off Wiki, demonstrated on the blog he persists in trying to link." and "He has a son with Autism and is convinced beyond reason that Autism is caused by vaccines. He is also convinced that Amanda Baggs is a fraud - due to the lies of a couple of other people." and "but I'm just pointing out that this person may be extremely dangerous and needs to be dealt with in the strongest possible terms." This is pure libel and defamation.--Appto (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, no need for kids to be mentioned, ive reverted--Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has put it back, for the 3rd time: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:DarkFalls#User:Bettwice33 And now in his History area he makes a demand. (Is this level of libel and malice accepted in users own Talk pages if it is written by the user himself)?--Appto (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better take it to WP:ANI.--Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!

Dear Hu12, I am humbled and flattered at receiving your barnstar. It is my first! I am truly honored you thought of me. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, its well deserved ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plaxall Article

You have removed relevant information which MUST be contained in the article. You have flagged the article for no reason. All information contained has been verified with external sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting Copywrited material. Also see WP:OWN--Hu12 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information is released under GFDL, Read the discussion page for gods sake. Read the page the questionable material came from. It has the necessary release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith Threats

Your threats on my talk page are not appreciated. Before accusing me of "disruptive editing", please read the policy yourself, especially the remedies. Nowhere does it say 'get into the editors face and threaten to block him the moment he disagrees with you on a subtle point'. And this is a subtle point. Please go to the talk page of Structured Investment Vehicle, and discuss your issue there in a calm and patient manner. Please do not block me, or I will take action against you. You have no right to escalate things this quickly for such a minor issue. I am not "disrupting" anything.

Wyattmj (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting a discussion, why are you ignoring it?

Wyattmj (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith "Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith."
Links normally to be avoided
4 Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.
10 Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
Which makes siv0.com....
1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource.
In addition. Please take a look at the Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.--Hu12 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with spam blacklist?

I tried and failed to add something to the spam blacklist. From the edit history you have obviously managed to add things successfully - could you help me? The two websites are hatingaustism.blogspot.com and autismfraud.blogspot.com. Background information is at Talk: Amanda Baggs and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Amanda_Baggs. Thanks, Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been added [13].--Hu12 (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Natalie (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Incisive Media

An editor has nominated Incisive Media, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incisive Media (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Gagme Witherspoon (talk · contribs) = linkspammer. He started out as 80.56.152.2 (talk · contribs). Single purpose IP.. single purpose account. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post on AN

Hi Hu12, regarding your post on WP:AN, we could see if we can get a comment on this, so that such sites can be blacklisted a bit quicker. A lot of people are spending a lot of time to get this whole lot cleaned up, a lot of articles are going to be de-referenced (well, they don't have a reference anyway .. but it may have quite an impact on the status of some articles in the end), and it will aggravate a lot of non-involved editors. There are quite a number of sites out there which have similar practices, and we have seen serious spam from some of them (we know the problem with the blogs, which are difficult to blacklist globally, but ehow etc. also advocate getting money for getting visitors to their site). What do you think? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we talked about IRC earlier .. you could try http://java.freenode.net/ (you need java in your browser for that; try the channel #wikipedia-spam-t first), you could have a look around in our bot-invested channels, and we can have a chat .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say bringing up all similar for comment and striking while the iron is hot is a damn good idea!--Hu12 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones do we have (I am creating a subsection below with a list .. will add some when they come around)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List

  • ehow.com: "First things first, in case you didn’t already know, all eHow registered users can write and publish articles on their topic of choice and, through our new Writer’s Compensation Program (WCP), automatically earn extra cash through PayPal." (www.ehow.com/write.html)
  • associatedcontent.com
  • suite101.com
  • lulu.com
I copied the list to WP:AN --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locating contributors

Do you have a site or script that you use to identify who has added particular links, or are you manually searching the article histories? I've been coming accross a particular site that seems most commonly used as a reference, although it fails as a WP:RS (it's a forum for collecting complaints against companies). But, I'm uncertain if it's an organized campain to insert it, or good faith additions by multiple parties who didn't know any better. Here's the site:

I was going to add it to WT:WPSPAM, but the format there seems to be to include the IP or user names of those who have inserted the links, which is the reason for my question regarding available tools. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manually searching the articles to see who added..if there are patterns or multiple SPA's...you may be on to something.--Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I've gone through a handful, and different contributors for each one so far (no SPAs as yet either). I'll search a few more just to verify there's no pattern. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to my report on 3RR

Hi, thank you for answering my request on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. I'm the one who was known as User:91.12.10.50. You said that this should be discussed on the talk page. However it does not seem to be a very active talk page and there are no replies yet. Could you please advise me on how to get this edit done? It seems that I cannot do it myself because I would violate the 3RR. I tried to post to User:Sceptre's talk page but somehow I cannot edit it (being a new user, I guess). Still, I don't quite see why you declined my request. I couldn't possibly have warned him as I cannot post to his talk page. However he seems to be aware of the rule because he has warned me. I did make four edits but only three of them were reverts, so I have not violated the rule myself. Thank you. --Xif (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Forcing (edit warring) for content inclusion is not the best means to help build Wikipedia. Talk pages can be slow, as this is not a discussion forum or chat room, wikipedia has its own pace and very little is urgent. Yes, you violated the rule, and being blocked is not how you want to start off here. See the welcome page to learn more.--Hu12 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you, but could you please point out how I violated? I don't mean to be nit-picking, but I'm trying to understand how this works. As I understand Wikipedia:3RR, a revert is "undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors," which I have done three times, and the rule says I must not "perform more than three reverts".
Would it be okay if I did my edit again, now applying my newfound knowledge about citing sources that I've read about in the link you gave me? Or do I have to wait 24 hours? I'm not really in a hurry, but I'm worried that I'll have forgot about it by then, and the false statement in the article would remain. I'm only worried about the quality of this encyclopedia ;) Thank you very much, --Xif (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First edit doesn't count, you reverted 3 times after. 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. People can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Three revert is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy (such as waiting 24 hours to revert you edit back).--Hu12 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So how can I get this fact rectified? How can I talk to User:Sceptre? --Xif (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've invited Sceptre here.--Hu12 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. --Xif (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not actually bothered whether it's in the article or not; it was 3am, I was a bit tired, and it did look quite unconstructive to me. Seeing as I won't have internet access for the next 48 hours anyway, a block would be overkill. Thanks, Will (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm the only one interested in the contents of the article and I'll have to re-add the fact tonight... I'll use reference markup to make it look less unconstructive. --Xif (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding of "Next-Generation IPTV Services with Wireless and Mobility"

Hi Hu12, I just realized that you removed the section about "Next-Generation IPTV Services with Wireless and Mobility" I added as you indicated that the claims are belonging a bit under Wikipedia's crystal ball or some sorts of the speculations. I believe that the use of my wordings "it's envisioned ..." is not good enough to layout the facts for what I collected and organized. I have rewrite the section and further cited other sources for the facts of claiming IPTV over WiMAX are being realized already by some early industrial deployment such as Nortel, Fujitsu, Alcatel-Lucent, etc. Other claims are concluded and summarized from an IEEE paper - "IPTV over WiMAX: Key Success Factors, Challenges, and Solutions", J. She, F. Hou, P.-H. Ho and L.-L. Xie, “IPTV over WiMAX: Key Success Factors, Challenges, and Solutions”, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 45, no 8, pp.87-93, Aug. 2007

I have added all supporting source in the references for the section I produced. Whereas, I believe it is very important to included this section to reveal the updated trends and future of IPTV with advanced wireless technologies available today, esp. the emerging wireless broadband technology based on WiMAX. I hope you will be ok to keep it or help to polish it.

WikiProject Spam illustration

Love the photo ([14])! -- SiobhanHansa 08:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stole the idea from User:AntiSpamBot (retired). ;-)--Hu12 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for PEI Media

I left the following comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PEI Media When you search for the brand name Private Equity International, rather than the company name PEI Media, you get better results. The news references at http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Private+Equity+International%22 seem sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.com-x2.com

Just removed a few links to this self-proclaimed free rev-share blogging site. User Onblogger recently. Since it's pretty obvious (at least to me) these links would never be allowed, I thought I would bring it to your attention in case you wanted to do something preemptive. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets warn him/her for now, if it continues we can do more. thanks Bobby--Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I monitored him on COIBot. Lets see what happens. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks DB--Hu12 (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:JSane

I ran into User:JSane at WP:EAR and soon realized that she is a newcomer who is going to need some extra attention. I'm going to try to work with her to teach her some of our ways of doing things - and what NOT to do. Could you please do two things to help me out?

  1. You posted on her talk page something that I don't understand. It must be even harder for a newcomer to understand. Could you explain to me what it means so that I can explain to her what she should do and should not do in the future?
  2. If you find any other problems with her or her contributions would you please let me know - again so that I can explain to her what she should do and should not do in the future? Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heres the full post. these are all related WP:SPA accounts, with a possible conflict of interest. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donor sibling stuff..

This subject it going to drive me insane! We have three pages.. Donor Sibling Registry (currently a redirect to Donor sibling registry which now redirects to Donor sibling registration.

Donor Sibling Registry and Donor sibling registry both have page histories - as they were both real articles at one point.. (one was a copy/paste recreation of the other).. the page is about a notable website/organization which was the first such organization to operate internationally. They have been on syndicated talk shows and the national news here in the US. Donor sibling registration should be a stand-alone article about the various laws/programs and efforts to register sperm & egg donors, and children born from artificial insemination..

I've been awake for going on 48hrs now.. so I'm not even going to try digging into this until I get some sleep.. but at some point.. I'm probably going to have to do that page history merge.. Just wanted to mention it since I keep bumping into your name in the history :) .. now, time to sleep!! ttyl --Versageek 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there needs to be a merge somewhere, no need for duplicates. Get some sleep.--Hu12 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although not related, similar repetition are Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery..UUgh--Hu12 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bda

Hi,

I wanted to follow up and understand the reasons for deleting the Berkeley Design Automation page and its listing under EDA Companies.

We are an EDA company and we would like to be listed in wikipedia. We will conform to the appropriate guidelines.

Thanks for your help.

bda_webmaster

Bda webmaster (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CORP. Seems its nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Your contributions to wikipedia under Estrada pi (talk · contribs) consist entirely of promoting Berkeley Design Automation and is considered WP:Spam. It is quite evident that your new account (Bda webmaster (talk · contribs)) is only contributing to Wikipedia in order to continue promoting Berkeley Design Automation. There also appears to be serious conflict of interest issues. Please do not create articles or continue to promote your own websites on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is removed. See the welcome page to learn more.Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12, I created a new page for Berkeley Design Automation following the guidelines and examples from similar companies to ours. I trust that this new entry is acceptable. If not, I would kindly request that you point out to me any changes I would need to change. Thanks for your help, Mick, BDA webmaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bda webmaster (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New admin school

Great work you're currently doing with improving it. :) I just have one question though; shouldn't Wikipedia:New admin school/NAS template technically be in the template-namespace? Acalamari 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just keeping the template "local" to the school, however if you think it has a broader use, by all means feel free to move/modify ect. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the other reason I felt it better for it to be in the template-space was because when accessing the template from the NAS pages, it leads to Template:New admin school (see the what links here for that template), which doesn't exist. Other than moving the template, I don't know how to fix that. Acalamari 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and done. {{New admin school}}. --Hu12 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. Acalamari 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to tweak it (ect), its based loosely off of Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me: the school page for giving/removing rollback will likely be the next major addition to the template and the school itself once that page is complete. Acalamari 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PowerBeam

Since you caught him promoting his company first [15] (at least the first time he edited with the account), I just wanted to let you know I've warned him on his talk page about his coi and username, but I may not be able to follow up with him due to my schedule. --Ronz (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom
Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~







If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Markets in Financial Instruments Directive

You are constantly 'trimming' links on this page which I have been putting up - without bothering to justify these edits.

The links are (would be) useful to researchers, lawyers etc who want to know about this Directive. They are not commercial spam and they all fall squarely within paragraph 3 of the WP:EL what should be linked section. Your edits don't refer to which paragraph of WP:EL you have in mind when deleting them.

Please bear in mind that over-enthusiastic deletion of user-contributed material disincentivises users from contributing material. I should add I am a subject-matter expert.

Posted by Laurencefwhite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencefwhite (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#REPOSITORY specifically. However WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10 applies also. The article need citations and references, not links. Arguments of "useful" do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. This conflicts with Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. This stuff does not belong in an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY para 1 states,
"Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."
So, this doesn't justify arbitrary removal of useful links. Obviously 'excessive' is a very subjective judgement.
As to Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY, which paragraph are you referring to?
Specifically, the links (among many others) you have sought to remove include
- reference to the most recent Directive amending MiFID (which is not reflected on the European Commission's main page). This is necessary to understand the subject-matter of the Article. I will work this into a footnote.
- reference to the CESR MiFID database. Contrary to your implicit assertion, this is not a search engine. It is a very useful database which is the authoritative list of markets, MTFs, systematic internalisers and shares for Europe.
I must confess I don't really understand your overall approach/attitude to usefulness. Why have an encyclopedia if it is not, at bottom, intended to be useful to the average reader who wants to become quickly acquainted with a subject? --Laurencefwhite (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the valid links for this article. What was your reason for attempting to remove them? 81.152.214.247 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that linking is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to link the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note.--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will stop, my bad. However, you blindly reverted a number of my good faith edits, on which I provided perfectly valid edit summaries. I please ask that you revert them back, or that you at least allow me to do so. Just because I may make a mistake does not mean that everything I do is wrong. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically I was referring to the following edits of mine, which you reverted:

fix a wikilink, add a category, put already existing link (which I did not add!) into a new section: [16]

expanding article, adding references: [17]

removed a comment which amounted to original research: [18]

fix a wikilink and remove a word which implied recentism: [19]

reverting an unexplained removal of text: [20]

clarifying what a link is pointing to (note that I didn't add that link either): [21]

If you can explain to me how any of these edits are wrong, I will drop it, but please do not treat me unfairly because some of my edits may have been improper. Thank you for your consideration. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I reverted your recent contribs, obviously those got caught up in it. Please explain why you felt in neessary to spam attack 28 (est) marvel articles then re-add to 11 more?--Hu12 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see links to Marvel's site on many other articles and have added it here and there, so I guess I got caught up in a frenzy. I wasn't trying to cause any trouble. I don't know what you mean about re-adding it, because I don't see where I re-added the link to anything you reverted. The only changes of yours I reverted are the ones I mention above, in which I added no links at all. I'd like to revert those same 6 changes, but I don't want to seem like I'm edit warring. With your permission, I'd like to revert those six once more and call it a day. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  :) I'm not a bad person, I swear! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your other contribs, and what you say is true. You've have done some fine work on the project. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) I just lack some self-control sometimes - my talk page is half warnings and half praise.  ;) Well, take care and keep up the good work yourself! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in italian wikipedia: Tommaso Fiore and many others

Hi, I don't understand why last March 6, 2008 you did 18 rollbacks (in 20 minutes) on pages having external links to the website of Legambiente Corato, whose copyright policy allows the no-profit use of contents. Since I presume you are not Italian native speaker, I'm sure you have removed these links for some reasons I'm still ignoring. I can just say that the contents of links you removed are of great value. Please, make me informed (also) on my user page. --151.67.101.178 (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your page--Hu12 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on my page. --151.67.101.178 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is a page on my watchlist. You recently reverted an edit by JSane. It wasn't for vandalism and it is not obvious to me what the reason for reverting was. I don't see any explanation on the article's talk page, nor on the editor's talk page. Would you please explain the reason for the revert? Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI --Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read her edits or are you reverting just because JSane made those edits? At Talk:Michelle Ferguson-Cohen#Just_for_the_record I examined every single edit that you keep reverting. Every edit is good - non-promotional, neutral, referenced. She actually made the article less promotional and your reverts are making it more promotional. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you if you had read any of the edits you reverted and you responded by adding an unrelated user to your list at Talk:Michelle_Ferguson-Cohen#Just_for_the_record. Once again I ask you, can you point to a single thing wrong with her edits? She has asserted that she does not have a conflict of interest. Your evidence is very flimsy. But even if she did have a COI, WP:COI states "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." She did write in a neutral tone and she did cite RS. So just what is your problem? I ask you to revert your removal of her edits and to remove her from whatever watchlist or spam list that you have put her under. You are violating WP:AGF and WP:BITE and your removals have no basis in WP:COI or any other policies or guidelines that I can see.
If you refuse to revert and leave her alone, then I ask you, an admin, what my next option is. Should I post at ANI? Should I seek 3O? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First AGF guideline does not apply in the presence of evidence to the contrary (ie, contribs). Nor does AGF mean that an editors actions should not be criticized. Suspecting that there is a conflict of interest by this person, does not violate AGF given the edit history. I don't expect a block will occur, however per policy Blocking_policy#Disruption:
  • "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines."[22]
I don't think any of us, including you think JSane passes the Duck test. Few people will edit topics (especialy an WP:SPA) in which they have no connection. You've asked for this person to declare an interest if there is one, and that has been meet to with vague answers. Not being Michelle, does not necesarily mean there is no a conflict (relative, friend publisher, ect). 170 + edit to a single topic a newbie (bite) this no longer makes. This is not a not a typical first edit. Nor does the average non conflicted editor have personal photos to upload of the subject, and to do so as a second edit. Little Redhaired Girl Publishing and the book for brats website have the same email as the Public Relations Contact. While I suspect it is not Michelle herself (as jsane has admited she wasn't), there is enough Ad hoc evidence to suspect that this person indeed has a conflict. Your editorial judgment I respect, and if want to reinsert, please do. A conflicted editor is a conflicted editor no matter how "wonderful" the edits may be. I will ask that references added, such as those with amazon sales links, and press releases [23][24] be omited per WP:RS. --Hu12 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure where this is coming from or where it is going, but since you have undone all my edits and listed me as a "spammer", I feel obligated to ask you about these points you made above.

  • "Little Redhaired Girl Publishing and the book for brats website have the same email as the Public Relations Contact. While I suspect it is not Michelle herself (as jsane has admited she wasn't), there is enough Ad hoc evidence to suspect that this person indeed has a conflict." Just exactly how does the company email address relate to me? And what is the connection between a common PR email address and company website contact email and some kind of Wiki conflict? I don't follow.
  • I don't have access to any "personal photos" of an author I don't know. I got that photo from the website at booksforbrats.net

[25]. As far as I know there is not COI or Copyright infringement using a public photo from a website. There was no copyright or ownership information on the website.

  • I don't regard my contributions, as "wonderful" or "conflicted" or any other subjective assessment, but as abiding by Wiki standards, neutral and as requested by people who have sought citations or requested my input to improve the article. I contributed to this article on Feb 29, 2008 and came back only after I was called to by an AFD post on my talk page.
  • The "amazon sales links" were not my contributions nor were they in the article. They were added as a reason for deletion on the deletion page. I debated the validity of these "amazon sales numbers" as a criteria to confer notability, but the editor who requested the deletion was very clear those were his valid criteria for "notability". I felt my contributions were verifiable and had independent sources and frankly were better. He regarded my sources, The Washington Times, The Colorado Springs Gazette or Fox News as "trivial" and I was forced to argue amazon sales links. As a newbie, I found this to be in opposition of the standards I read and Sbowers3 was quite helpful in assuring me that I was headed in the right direction. It's interesting that now someone else's tactics are being used to suggest I have been "promoting" or "advertising" somehow.

I look forward to your response. --JSane (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license". With a source statement of self-made, please explain. the site claims its copywritten. Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of editing this one topic, how are you related to the subject or topic?. If you feel more comfortable disclosing who you are in private, reply to me using the wikipedia email. --Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JSane if you downloaded that photo from their website, that probably is a copyright violation. We'll have to check on it. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, thank you for not objecting to me reinserting her edits. I think they make the article more neutral and better referenced.

There is one thing I don't understand. You say, "Little Redhaired Girl Publishing and the book for brats website have the same email as the Public Relations Contact." That doesn't surprise me a bit, but I don't understand how that relates to JSane. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. While the article has been reverted to a more neutral and cited article the issue of suggesting I have a conflict of interest or calling me a spammer has not.
  • If there's a copyright violation on the photo, there's no problem removing it. That's something that could be brought up in the editing process. But my use of that photo was used as a rationale for suggesting I had a conflict of interest.
  • You keep saying that I have not made any other contributions to Wiki, which is also untrue. Though I would have likely made more if I didn't have to devote so much time to this article and defending myself. As Sbowers3 will tell you, as a newbie this experience has almost put me off Wiki entirely. At this stage, I am also concerned that this nastiness will follow me to the other sites where I am contributing and hurt the neutrality of those articles as well. I assumed this was an academic site.
  • I still don't understand what this "email address" issue is about either. First of all, the publisher's email address does NOT relate to me in anyway. As for its relation to the article, after doing some research, any publishing house has the same contact email and email domain name as their publicity contact, because generally the public relations representative works for or with the publishing company. How is this business practice related to Wiki? Does this mean we are going to go after Random House or Penguin authors now?
  • Since you are concerned about the neutrality of the article, you should note that many referenced and verifiable citations continue to be deleted in a manner that is not in keeping with Wiki standards. I do believe there is a conflict of interest here, but it is not to my benefit, nor to the benefit of any of the other editors listed in the spam list or of the subject matter. I'm unsure why citiations and references are being frequently deleted from this article without analysis, purpose or reason.
  • Your request to know my personal identity is worrisome. This is beginning to feel VERY personal. I will discuss its precedent on Wiki with Sbowers3 or another friendly administrator as well as my husband and my employer who I will not disclose other than to say they are academic. Obviously, this is not something that I am comfortable with and curious as to why these standards are only applying to me and not others who have made uncited claims to the article that you have not disputed. --JSane (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask booksforbrats to disclose his identity. Only to clarify that he did not have a COI on the discussion page as per your COI post. I will be happy to discuss with Sbowers3. I think he understands I have no COI here. Does that mean you will remove my username as a spammer? --JSane (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm also would like to know who you are to ensure there is no Conflict of Interest."?? ...spare me the rhetoric... if its verified that you do not have a conflict and have not used alternate accounts to edit or participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, the case is closed and I'll be happy to remove the message on your talk page. That simple, we both have better things to spend our time on, lets wrap this one up..agree?--Hu12 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who am I? I'm a newbie which is why I asked them to respond to the discussion page not to me personally. --JSane (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did say that one of those IP addresses is mine, but I clarified that from the start. Still, I did go back and sign manually. I'm with you. I'm a big fan of wrapping this up.--JSane (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building PHP into a Featured Article

I am currently trying to build PHP into a Featured Article, and I noticed that you have contributed a considerable amount of time to the PHP article. If you have time, could you please help out and improve the article, copyedit it, and peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithmic trading

I re-inserted a link to Advanced Trader Magazine, which you'd previously taken out, while at the same time removing an Apama link. The Mag looked fairly informative, and is not an advertizing site - but is not crucial for the article. The Apama link was to a product site. The Mag may be borderline: I think Algo is an important topic, but there's some difficulty getting good technical explanations. I'll trust your review on this. Thanks.

Smallbones (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion Review for Magillem

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Magillem. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu

Hi there. I understand that the edits you made to the Lulu (publisher) page were good faith edits designed to get around the blacklisting/whitelisting issues with the URL, however removing the HTTP:// from all the references rendered them broken and unusable. I have rolled the page back so it works properly again. Maybe a better solution to the issue can be found. Canterbury Tail talk 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've rendered the page usless to editing, Perhaps the solution is to introduce sourse other than from the subject?--Hu12 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point now. I wonder if we can use TinyURLs to do the reference links, or would that just give other people too many ideas? Canterbury Tail talk 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny url has been blocked also (abuse). I'm going to whitelist all the links on that specific page. should fix the issue.;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good thinking on someone's behalf there. Okay may be best, seems like overkill but may be necessary. Keep up the good work, I wasn't trying to second guess you. Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fully functional now--Hu12 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TerrorBot

I wanted to let you know that I've unblocked this user so that they can pursue a username change. Also, I noticed that you disabled account creation when you blocked them. Was this just a mistake, or is there something to this that I'm overlooking? Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot blocked it through the link. Should have just username blocked--Hu12 (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Straw man

Thank you Hu12 for attending to this article. I understand that you have no objection to there being two examples quoted of straw man arguments. (If otherwise, see question on Talk page.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead an re-add--Hu12 (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hu12. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanctions. Corvus cornixtalk 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing

I have begun discussions on your editing reverts on several pages to include:


I invite you to dicuss.143.79.143.10 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to WP:TALK, If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale. I posted here on your talk page about the discussions I started, but have yet to hear from you. Just wondering if you were going to be answering my query to your edits.143.79.143.10 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skins deletion

Referring to Skins Compression Garments. Full disclosure: I work there. First, you had a go at me for advertising. Then deleted the Skins page about 3 times. Okay, gotcha. Message received. So I went off, re-wrote the entire page so it was in a NPOV as a document noting the existence, structure, history and VERY brief mention of the company's products. Not a single TM in sight and every claim on the page is referenced to the journal, publication or research organisation that created it, all in line with Wikipedia:Citing_sources. In fact, I'd be editing in the link to the Therapeutic Goods Administration listing for the garments tested in the studies had the page not been deleted. As listings of companies that are market leaders in their field go, this one I've just written is about as boring as it gets. It's just the facts and nothing more. The company is notable because of the ones creating compression garments, it's the only one contributing to the base of scientific research into the field.

Of course, then I stumbled onto the wealth of encylopaedic information in Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man and Wikipedia:List of cabals and the external links to Under Armor's new shoe style that they've announced (with picture! look that one up! great encyclopaedic NPOV there) and wonder why the Skins page is worthy of your instant, might-as-well-be-automated deletion. I kid, but you get my drift. Some get away with murder, we get the death penalty for jaywalking. It's hard not to feel there's a bias against smaller companies (that are nonetheless leaders in Australia, Europe, UK etc - just not in the USA).

I'm sure you won't mind my asking, but did you even check this revision to see whether it fits with Wikipedia policy or did some page-re-add alarm go off and we just got in the way regardless of the content? I see the page is now protected. Can you please review the new content and the protected state, please? Gbskins (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12; I've posted several questions at the spam project talk page re: this reincarnation of the Skins article [26]. Thanks for your efforts, JNW (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have answered them. Gbskins (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book, Ape Entertainment and Kevin Moyers Reverts

I see that you reverted my edits to the Comic Book, Ape Entertainment and Kevin Moyers entries. May I ask why they were reverted? Both edits had to do with the topic the entry was about and seemed significant to me.

The Kevin Moyers edit was in regards to an interview which he conducted, the Ape Entertainment edit was in regards to an interview with Jay Carvajal (writer of The Misadventures of Clark and Jefferson - an Ape Entertainment Publication) which has been allowed on wikipedia before with the ComicsBulletin interview of the author. As I understand it, interviews with creators are allowed.

The Comic Book edit was an addition of webcomics sub section, which fall under comic books, just as graphic novels etc do. Can you please explain to me the reasoning behind these reverts? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASIA MY SPACE

Hey it says on the ASIA discussion page no my space links, then please remove the john Payne official myspace link on the john payne wiki page if you claim ASIA's official my space link does not belong because NO MY SPACE LINKS BELONG ON WIKIPEDIA! If so... here is a violation! http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_Payne_%28singer%29 Please act or make it clear that the official ASIA my space page belongs on the ASIA wiki site, and reinstate it!70.188.184.84 (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)AP[reply]

As much as I agree with you, AP, that wikipedia is not the place for Any myspace links (repeat...any!), it is an official page of the articles subject and John Payne's personal myspace —and isn't prohibited by restrictions on linking. Unfortunately john Payne official myspace does belong on his specific page (any other page would be inapropriate). See the External links policies first statement within Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided section.. ("Except..." )--Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then please reinstate ASIA's official my space page on ASIAs wiki page the same way JP's official my space is on JP wiki page, or remove them both!70.188.184.84 (talk)AP —Preceding comment was added at 11:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you were asked some questions at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Asia_%28band%29#External_links_follow-up Your response would be appreciated. Sincerely70.188.184.84 (talk) How are you tonight? Some more questions were added for you at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Asia_%28band%29#External_links_follow-up Thank you for your time it is much appreciated, have good night sir!

Heads up!

Thought I'd point you at m:User:SpamReportBot/cw. This is a listing of all links that have been added to multiple foundation wikis over the last few days. As you see... we miss alot. I've put more detail at the talk page of the spam blacklist —— Eagle101Need help? 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AkhtaBot

Hi, I'm from the BAG - was wondering what was the problem with AkhtaBot (talk · contribs) which I've saw you blocked per "Bot malfunctioning:" yet the accounts has only one edit and no deleted edits or logs. You sure you got the wrong account? Happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 16:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So its a legit bot? That was done when I was patrolling new usernames, I'll unblock.--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is now, since we approved the trial. In future, when blocking usernames contaning "bot" that haven't been created by other users, please don't use "bot malfuntioning" as block reason, as it's definitively wrong, and also, could you kindly leave a msg about the username block (the standard template should be enough) on the user talk page? Thanks :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry About the Apparent Self-Promo

I have since learned that the way to propose an external link with which one is associated is via the article talk page and have done so for Environmental Policy.

I would suggest that a better test would be substantive value of the link since it would be fairly easy to employ a 'shill' to promote a link as well, wouldn't it?

In any case, I ask your pardon.

Adam Cherson 3/29/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.246.43 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user re-added the external link to his site to several articles including the one referenced. Seems a clear case of self-promotion - and he hasn't "learned". I've removed the links again. Vsmith (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of "duplicate image" CSD rationale

I've noticed that quite a few of the images you've marked for speedy deletion using the "duplicate image" rationale in fact are not duplicates of any other image. In several cases, they were pictures of the same building, but from a different angle. This does not qualify for their being a duplicate. A duplicate is supposed to be a redundant exact copy of another image, not another picture of the same subject, and, in any case, there must actually be a duplicate image on Wikipedia for that rationale to be used.

Further, in placing the template, you must have done something wrong, because in each case the word "Image:" was repeated in the wikilnk to the purported duplicate -- making it "Image:Image:name of image" instead of the proper "Image:name of image."

Please be more careful in your use of the duplicate rationale in the future. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your contribs, I'll assume this message is misplaced and was intended for Special:Contributions/122.104.81.110?. --Hu12 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. My mistake, and my apologies. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the speedy misuse, BTW ;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.74.236.150

Good job, beat me to that! —— nixeagle 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrogacy

Nice one on the ELs. I think you may get some flak though. Some people think these sites are important, simply because they are non-profit! Greetings TINYMARK 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Being Non profit isn't an automatic inclusion critera as far as I know..It doesn't matter--being noncommercial, these sites are often trying to sell something even if the business is organized as a nonprofit.;) Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i did xplan. ANI is on wrong page

I did explain y I del the ANI. I was told I put it on the wrong page. So I del it.It is in the edit summaries, did u look
xplanation #1 : http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=202574388&oldid=202573560
xplanation#2: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=202583792 70.108.103.64 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the revert?

I was wondering about this. Mr. Ambassador (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiesel

Sorry - but your comment was unintentionally deleted. I noticed the edit conflict - reloaded and pasted my comments in (and apparently overwriting yours). Btw. no need to tag regulars. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I btw. agree with the comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this moot..;)--Hu12 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is how conflicts are resolved on wikipedia: people run around and intimidate other users from making edits and then threaten with their administrator friends when someone don't agree with you, then wikipedia just lost another fan.--Apis O-tang (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apis please assume good faith - please see Hu's warning at the bottom of my talk page. Hu didn't come to "my rescue" or just "threaten" one party. He saw an edit-conflict and stepped in to warn both parties. As is appropriate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient.--Apis O-tang (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats convenient? --Hu12 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided countless references upon KDP's request, but that is pointless, hes not changing his personal point of view, and isn't going to let me add anything he don't like. And why should he, you and he have made it clear that I will be blocked if I make further edits. His main contribution judging from his page seems to be reverting other users edits so I guess this is how things usually work out on wikipedia.--Apis O-tang (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you were in an edit war. You were not singled out, it applies to her also. thats why I posted the warning on the talk page. i just want you two to work it out, and find a common ground. --Hu12 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry for making unsubstantiated accusations. Suddenly getting a lot of "you will be blocked" notifications felt rather hostile, so got a bit paranoid. =( --Apis O-tang (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustable gastric band talk page discussion

It does look like there is ongoing competitive link ad/removal and link spam, but I did add some comments here at Talk:Adjustable_gastric_band#Removed_forum_link, which are a continuation of my earlier post. Would you add anything to the discussion? Flowanda | Talk 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were on point, however I'll add that Abrecher (talk · contribs) is apparently engaging in spam warring, link vandalism, and is clearly contributing to wikipedia in order to promote a forum, which violates WP:EL. Moving ones link "UP" is never a sign of good faith. I've blocked the account per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption;
  • for persistent spamming
  • accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Also created a report, here so if this spamming continues other mesures may need to be taken. Thanks,--Hu12 (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:88.209.92.93

FYI. The IP user deleted User talk:Theirearth repeatedly. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust (Resources) edit

Can you explain what you mean by your edit summary: "this is for on wiki resources" when you removed the external links section? I would certainly agree that the external links could be improved, but seems to me to be an important section particularly for those who might not have easy access to a libe. --Joel Mc (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust (resources), is a list of wikipedia resources from the main article Holocaust, and is being used primarily for navigational purposes or for developing Wikipedia content related to Holocaust. External links are contrary to this purpose, and do not add content or meaning to the project. Wikipedia is not a repository for these links. Wikipedia needs content imported, not export readers away from wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites. Perhaps a link to Dmoz may be appropriate, however we are not a directory of internet sites.--Hu12 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic: Leasing

I added a msg on the "Discussion" page of Leasing. To discuss adding a link that could be of use. Why did you remove a proposal? I don't understand. I was told by another member to add to the discussion page first, then to the actual page. But if I can't even discuss the topic, what's the point?


You did the same thing to Section 179 Discussion Page.

Daniel Szafran (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to wikipedia under Daniel Szafran and IP 64.149.122.185, consist entirely of adding external links or Canvassing for ilslease.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be ilslease.com related only. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote ilslease.com right?
Here are some related rules:
--Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thanks for the note, but the odds are slim that I'd get overwhelming support, both because of the enemies I've made who'd come out of the woodwork (User:Everyking has even posted on WR that I ought to be banned) and the schoolmarmish types who dislike my blunt approach. But thanks for the vote of confidence. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share your distaste for the ways Rfas can be trolled or used as soapboxes by other users, but you need not cater to that.--Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a taste of the wackiness that would result from my apply for adminship, check out the shenanigans here, where a few admins get a bug up their butts about my horrible and disruptive tagging of spammer talk pages. User:Doug User:Ryan Postlethwaite‎, and User:John Reaves seem particularly, well, obsessed -- check out the last one's comments in particular. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Tote Tasmania"

I am confused as to why this page was marked as 'blatant advertising' then deleted straight away. It has been on Wikipedia for weeks now and it seems a change I made to it today triggered its deletion, which I don't understand as this information was taken directly from newspapers. Can you please make some suggestions to me as to how I can fix the article and have it put back up as I thought I was very careful and followed Wikipedia's rules. Thankyou Terrance-Elliot (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of references

Instead of deleting every (unbiased and non-commercial) website I post as a reference. Can you please direct me to the wiki TOS that demonstrates what I'm doing is not allowed. Because I haven't been able to find it. Might save us both. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Training Within Industry problems

Can you please explain why I can't post a link to my blog and FREE public domain content - and am being accused of violating spam policies? All the while I make no money on anything I've ever posted, since this is just a hobby of mine and trying to contribute to the wiki community regarding a topic that I feel very passionate about - continuous improvement. After some time, I'm getting the impression, that my input isn't wanted in this neighborhood.

In the meantime, a legitimate business is allowed to have their link posted on the very same wiki page I'm accused of spamming. If a wiki user clicked their link and signed up for their services, they are making thousands of dollars, due to direct violation of Wikipedia spam policy - at least as I understand it. This site offers no useful information beyond what is on the TWI wiki page and certainly doesn't offer the free content my site offers to folks. I don't even ask users to register their email to download the public domain pdfs! But my useful links are deleted and their's remains on the top of the external link list.

Hu12, can you please explain the decision making process here when it comes to the policies you have cited and the actions you have taken?

Best regards, Lundbird —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lundbird (talk • contribs) 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that trainingwithinindustry.net or trainingwithinindustry.blogspot.com should also exist.
External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you own trainingwithinindustry.net and trainingwithinindustry.blogspot.com. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote trainingwithinindustry.net and trainingwithinindustry.blogspot.com. Your contributions to wikipedia under Lundbird and IP's 64.223.83.130, 64.222.107.6, 64.223.81.23, 64.222.103.151, 64.222.102.99, 96.236.102.249 and 64.222.83.63, consist entirely of adding external links to trainingwithinindustry.net and trainingwithinindustry.blogspot.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be trainingwithinindustry.net and trainingwithinindustry.blogspot.com related only. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. You have clarified this for me, I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lundbird (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tin foil hat phase

We're almost to that point.[27]

I strongly recommend not intervening unless requested to do so by the regulars on that page.

It does make interesting reading. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..ooh boy.. vio of Wikipedia:Talk page paragraph 2 (in bold). Quite an interesting read non-the-less--Hu12 (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
household aluminium foil

Thanks

... for the kind words, and the Barnstar. Much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Speedy Deletion

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Amy_Lynn_Best

Could you please delete this article?

A template that was uncontested for five days has been on this wiki page. The Mike Watt writer page was also deleted, which was recently deleted for similar reasons. This other page also is used by the same author to blantantly advertise his amateur acting/writing career. Thanx for helping to make Wiki a better place and thanx for your time spent on wiki page maintenance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poyoyloar (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May want to consider listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Hu12 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta subtle one!

Nosing around.... I found open proxies doing copyedits & placing links - one site is eating.slew.org with "contributions" from here as well as the IPs. While I'm typing this (:)) I found another & another! The other site is recipe.acaro.org (I'm guessing there is a connection maybe) which again was placed by an open proxy & this user. If you know a friendly CU it might be worth a word? Not around enough to keep a close eye but thought I should pass it on - cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related for sure, Adsense pub-1089039922568192--Hu12 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Throw in Special:Contributions/61.186.94.146. Blocking proxies now & food.plorp.com now. Probably should be considered for BL? --Herby talk thyme 11:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum - agreatchef.com - may be connected but was being removed by a proxy to so could be "turf wars". Placed by User talk:Chefrob & User talk:69.43.150.5 - goes back some - cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..and howtomake.co.za, all seem to be Scraper sites. --Hu12 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies have restarted this activity today. I've blocked the proxies & blacklisted 5 sites in connection with this. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino television directors

Hello. Since you successfully managed to get the list deleted, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to clean up this category: Category:Filipino television directors. I had originally created the list to rectify this problem. The JPStalk to me 08:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you keep in on your watch list... The JPStalk to me 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching page. Adding www.internationalcoachingcommunity.com

Hello, I added today a link to International Coaching Community on the coaching page, where other certifying organizations are published.

I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to know wich is the procedure to follow to put ICC as a reference on the coaching page.

Actually this organization holds more than 3000 people worldwide in more than 34 countries and it is one of the biggest organizations in coaching.

Any help will be appreciated.

Best regards. Alejandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afeiges (talk • contribs) 03:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your suggestion of "meatpuppetry" and rapidly ending reasonable discussions

Your suggestion that I have engaged in "meatpuppetry" in [discussion] is completely unfounded. My views are entirely my own. You, on the other hand, have been campaigning against the issue of the "Asia Fan Club" link, and more recently, against my attempts at having general policy enforcement questions answered, and have rapidly closed discussions allowing for little or no imput from other editors or administrators. I find this behavior appalling and will continue to argue for fair and reasonable treatment of content on Wikipedia, despite your efforts. My only intention is to help make articles on Wikipedia an accurate representation of information and resources, and to rally for fair treatment when I believe that that is being threatened. If that's "disruptive" then maybe you need to go ahead and "block" me. If the "powers that be" feel that Wikipedia should be administered contrary to that intent, then I need to take my efforts elsewhere anyway. Sincerely --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May want to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wikipedia is not a platform to exploit for pushing adjendas... Time to move on from this and focus your efforts in more productive channels. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry... are you actually referring to my asking questions to clarify administrators' policy enforcement, and insistence that Wikipedia should be edited objectively as "pushing an agenda" ?? If so, I think perhaps you've just answered all my questions about YOUR intentions... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too was surprised at your comments, Hu12. I am, I believe, an editor in good-standing, so I felt that accusations of disruptive behaviour and meat-puppetry were quite uncalled for. As Shubopshadangalang, I believe there is a key issue here that has not been addressed -- namely the conflating of punishment of AFCP's inappropriate behaviour as an editor with consideration of the merits of a site as an external link. Yet other editors were putting forth different perspectives on the issue when you curtailed discussion. Can I first suggest that we all (including Shubopshadangalang) calm down and re-read WP:AGF. I see no need to rush to judgement on any side. May I then go on to suggest to you, Hu12, that as someone who has been long involved in the debate yourself, you may wish to recuse yourself from wielding administrator powers in the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have to, and judging from the strong consensus at AN and at SBL, with numerous administrators involved, there is little reason to see the link restored. There is also strong consensus for an outright ban or indefinite block of any users involved with the debate, and for lengthy blocks of any trolling IP addresses. I highly suggest that both Bondegezou and Shub find something more constructive to edit, as continued ranting at SBL and elsewhere will only result in the posts being deleted and sanctions being imposed. seicer | talk | contribs 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like it

Comments here are welcome, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More with the new admin school

Hi Hu12, you've done a lot of work with improving the new admin school. I thought you may want to take a look at User:Acalamari/Test, which covers granting and removing rollback, before I move it into the school. Thanks. Acalamari 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Acalamari, looks good! Can't think of anything more it needs right now. --Hu12 (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input! Moved to Wikipedia:New admin school/Granting and revoking rollback. All links have been updated accordingly. Acalamari 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of photos

How come the photos I added were removed from http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Personal_trainer?

They are high quality photos, highly relevant to the topic. Why would you remove perfectly good content?

ISeePhotos (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the revert?/Ethanol Fuel

Why did you remove the source I added to the Ethanol Fuel/Criticisms & Controversy page? The source is The Economist, a publication that is quite reputable and qualified to talk about economic matters such as the specific amount of subsidies for ethanol. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420

The article was already used as a source on another page about biofuels with the same factoid ($7mil/$1.90 per gal) so I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed on the ethanol page. The figures in the Economist article are exactly the same as those used in the Wikipedia article that needed citation. Is it because of my username? It was a stupid joke; anyway, I meant "pushee" not as in "pushy" like "I am POV pushing" but as in "one who is pushed" like "I am POV pushed". Yeah. It was stupid. I know. POVpushee (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spam-blacklist header

I don't know about you, but on my display, the massive indentation ends up making the template wider than the window, making it practically unreadable. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? - there's got to be some better way of doing it. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Architectural intentions

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Architectural intentions. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gutt2007 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State of Play (film)

Hi there. Can I ask the reason for this edit? I assume the use of the site is somehow contentious? Steve T • C 10:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just blacklisted due to spamming.--Hu12 (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I was just about to mention that I'd spotted the man behind the site spamming us. My own use of the link was completely independent (found it after he left the link on the film's imdb page). So even if the interview I liked to is found to be genuine, it can't be used at any point in the future? Steve T • C 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've whitelisted that single url and have reinserted it. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exceedingly considerate of you. Thanks and all the best, Steve T • C 10:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of myPartner.com

I did post this yesterday on your talk page and I can't seem to find where those went. I am wondering why myPartner.com was deleted. You have it noted as advertising (which it isn't) and it has been up for about 2 months now. I guess I am wondering why there is a problem now. Blm0303 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been deleted a total of three times now, read your talk page.--Hu12 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

I have and I cleaned up the problems with it. If there was a problem, it would have speedily been deleted like all the other times. Again, it was okay for the last two months. I don't understand why 2 months later their is a problem. I made all the corrections I was told to do. This last version was a complete rewrite of my original post. Blm0303 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your missing the point. It's been delete three times in the last 2 months it was never okay. --Hu12 (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been up for 2 months! I have it saved into a word document with the date on it showing me when I put it up. I am not missing the point. I did what you guys asked. I added notable sources and included why it should be listed here. There are other dating sites on here. I don't understand why a gay dating site seems to be an issue. Blm0303 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

silversnowball dot com

Just a friendly heads up. This is a blatant pyramid scheme using the American Silver Eagle and silver prices as a very enticing bait. It's hit my personal forums (and others that I coexist with) hard and it going to get worse as they add "affiliates". They all use the same url with a different query string appended to it. I would imagine that there have been some removed here already, but I'm not sure of it. I would strongly suggest just adding it to the blacklist now and being done with it. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling discussion to resume

I see you unblocked Betacommand to allow him to participate in the discussion [28]. Would you consider also unblocking User:Locke Cole who was later blocked by User:LaraLove, as he should be allowed to take part in the discussion as well. See what I wrote here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that. User:East718 got there first and has unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update Carcharoth ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


...LOL.. sorry & thanks for the correction--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThisIsaTest

I noticed that you do some repair in at User:ThisIsaTest and the associated talk page. If I'm wrong then just disregard this comment. These pages appear at CAT:SHORTFIX, a maintenance category, because they might break a propose syntax change. See CAT:SHORTFIX for more information. I checked the pages and the included subpages and was not able to determine the cause. If the shortcuts do break when the template is changed then at least you will know something about what happened.

P.S. I'm just a gnome doing my gnome thing. --DRoll (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I was able to clear the problem. --DRoll (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Beta

Can I just say I'd have appreciated it if you had followed Wikipedia:Blocking#Unblocking and tried to contact me about it. The issue was Beta's attacks on other users. Your unblocking rationale on the talk page concerned the revert warring, but that wasn't why he was blocked (which is very clear). The personal attacks were very strong, and the guy's just after facing arbitration. The unblocking really doesn't make sense, esp. as the first thing he did when returning is renew his attacks. Would you mind clarifying? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I should have posted a note on your page (apologies). Don't feel your block was wrong because I shortened it. Everyone can agree that both sides in that content dispute should have more active in discussion. thats the main reason for shortening it, discussion. You block may have prevented the escelation of one side of the dispute for the time being, however the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it especialy on policy pages. While the Locke Cole's changes may not have been "obvious" vandalism, it could have been seen by some close to that particular policy page as vandalism. 10 hours seemed plenty, but if nothing does change it wouldent have make a difference if it was 24 or 48 any ways. Both sides "felt" their block was "punative" and this only breeds resentment and serves to hinder productive discussions and compromise with anyone involved. These aren't bad people, they are human and do have wikipedias interests at heart. --Hu12 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam reporting

Sorry, I've never tried to use the page before, and it is a major pain, I keep getting a Wikimedia Foundation error. I'm disinclined to ever return to that page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Ledge

Greetings! Interested to know why you deleted the little section on Access I added to the piece on [Dancing Ledge]? Would be very grateful if you could explain. Even if you don't like the link to the aerial photo (which people would find interesting I think) or access (important because the Ledge is difficult to access), I don't see the reason for removing the info that the Ledge is owned by the National Trust? Many thanks if you don't mind taking the trouble to explain and all good wishes 82.71.0.229 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links normally to be avoided #15--Hu12 (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article question: UFO

Hi Hu12,

from what i understand you want some reliable source for the new phoenix "sighting". are the following links reliable enough to verify this "modern ufo report"? :

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352156,00.html

http://news.ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=814826

i'm new to wiki and so i don't know what is considered reliable or not. but i think foxnews and official news radio stations are reliable enough?...

regards SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "explanation": http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=8214176 It was my suggestion to wait, that's all, nothing more. I have patience. Jok2000 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scene Missing Magazine Edits

Hi- I run the Scene Missing Magazine website. Would it be possible to repost the deleted interview links I posted earlier in the week? I assumed making these edits that a personal interview was entirely appropriate for the external links section of an individual's wikipedia page. 69.15.216.203 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info --Herby talk thyme 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scene Missing Admin: Thanks for reinstating these links- I need to edit some of them however, as some of the links that have been reposted are old and outdated (the entire reason for my edits earlier in the week were due to losing the permalinks after a database change) I hope this won't be perceived as spamming wikipedia. thanks for your time, and I apologize for my unfamiliarity with the wikipedia editing system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.216.203 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

non-profits

There are a great many times non-profits complain about the spam tagging, saying they're not a business. Of course, the same thing applies to them in any case, but perhaps we could be clearer. Perhaps we should think about revising the tags in such cases to be more inclusive -- the first step might be saying "promotion" instead of "advertising". DGG (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What???

You sent this to me:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk)

What are you talking about???— 172.142.190.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Err...this --Hu12 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the revert?/Ethanol Fuel

(Bringing this up again because I'm guessing I won't get a response since the talk page was archived. Really would appreciate a response.)

Why did you remove the source I added to the Ethanol Fuel/Criticisms & Controversy page? The source is The Economist, a publication that is quite reputable and qualified to talk about economic matters such as the specific amount of subsidies for ethanol. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420

The article was already used as a source on another page about biofuels with the same factoid ($7mil/$1.90 per gal) so I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed on the ethanol page. The figures in the Economist article are exactly the same as those used in the Wikipedia article that needed citation. Is it because of my username? I meant it a (bad) joke; "pushee" not as in "pushy" like "I am POV pushing" but as in "one who is pushed" like "I am POV pushed". Yeah. It was stupid. Anyway please don't interpret my username as disruptive or malicious, again, not how I meant it. POVpushee (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the link meet;
Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Are there other Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available?--Hu12 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, I saw this, and I'm also confused. The reference shown above is to the on-line site for The Economist, I'm not sure how the "Self published" guideline would apply here. My understanding is that they do publish content that's as factually accurate as any other newspaper source, although their articles do not reflect a NPOV in how they present those facts. Still, as a source for the numerical figures such as the numbers indicated by the OP in the article, the newspaper and site would seem to be an adequately RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its good add it back..;)--Hu12 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok added it back with a note. Should I avoid using The Economist as a source for things other than facts though in general? POVpushee (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be used to verify content, seems reasonable it should be used. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


123cfd.com

What on earth are you talking about? This website is a wikipedia like website that aims to provide unbiased information, there is no promotion of a specific products or services offered by persons. It's in no way spam and has existed on the Contracts for Difference wikipedia entry for 6-8 months, it's simply domain specific information that is so extensive that it does not belong as part of the Contracts for Difference article.

Please explain what part of it makes you think it breaks the guidelines? 124.171.29.232 (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

124.171.29.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
210.80.187.27 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
60.241.188.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

123cfd.com links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
  • Adsense pub-9763221599431637 financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

Here are some additional rules:


ok, understood, thank you. just to clarify, an example, site like the one linked in the external links to Ascii85 would also be considered spam? because of the advertising on that page? 124.171.29.232 (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic advice needed

Hi I was just wondering if you could help me out by offering your view on if my following edits would be considered malicious/out of line? I'm editing the article Vaporware as I feel the article is NPOV as it is not neutral as such I have added a NPOV tag, started a discussion and done some minor editing to the actual article. Now the crux of my problem is that someone has removed NPOV tag and said the article has been improved when little to no editing has been done and absolutely no discussion has been done, would it OK if I re-added the tag or would that be leaning towards edit warring or wikilawyering. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus process, basically, means that the majority of editors can more or less agree on some changes. However none of these anons seem to be involved in discussing the "neutrality" issue, just removing tags. Being so, there is not consensus for its removal. I've added back the tag. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that I appreciate the help/advice --Sin Harvest (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informative edit summaries

That's a good enough edit summary, right?  :-) But seriously, I suppose you disagree with me. Why so? I'll check back here later to see if you answered. Thanks, daveh4h 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any links to that AN/I discusion would be broken with heading change, thus causing confusion. Nothing wrong with the current version, I did like your description better, however there is no need to make a change. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Singer / fell g

We have a problem with Fell G, who has now 2 3RR blocks in little time, and has been disrupting several articles. Would it be possible to unprotect FS, and warn FG to stop disrupting it? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him for Edit warring, after the page protect on Fred Singer, when the same confrontational use of edits spilled onto Global warming controversy. I'll unlock Fred Singer. --Hu12 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicion that User:Grazen may be his sock/meat puppet, due to a number of striking similarities in content in style (e.g., use of multiple consecutive tildes in edit summaries, which both users stopped doing around April 22). But I'm not certain whether it's solid enough for WP:SSP. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth a mention on AN/I, more eyes and input on this might be enough for WP:SSP. I see some of the similarities you speak of, except for this (but could be to mislead) . --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fell G has also engaged in alot of canvassing to try to find someone to help him remove information from the article on Joseph J. Romm, a writer on global warming, sustainable energy technologies and related policy issues. BTW, I encourage everyone to review and edit the Joseph Romm article, as I would like to improve it further. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When is spam undesirable and when is it useful and worth the ads part?

Hi Hu12. Some while ago now user Caomhin went through pretty much every Essex-related site removing a page-relevant link (i.e. if the page was for Brentwood it linked directly to a Brentwood historical page) to a page from historyhouse (unable to put in url) which had highly relevant historical information of interest to us Essex folks. I reverted these edits on pages in which I had a watch interest (i.e. West Bergholt, Doddinghurst, Brentwood, Shenfield, Hutton, Great Warley, Blackmore, Little Warley, Mountnessing & Ingatestone) and left it to other watchers elsewhere to see if they could be bothered with the rest of Essex. You have now reverted these edits and in interests of avoiding an edit war I am requesting that you revert back again for the following reasons; if you feel unable to revert back then I request that you at least provide as well-reasoned a statement as to 'why not' as I have provided here supporting why you ought.

1. The material on offer on these History House pages does not appear to be generally available in any other place online; 2. It is not already present in the respective Wikipedia pages; 3. The pages invariably shows pictures and other information that would appear to be subject to copyright and not, therefore, available to be published directly in Wikipedia; 4. As well as the key link in each case to Whites Directory (not available elsewhere online to my (poor) knowledge), there are also other quite well researched links to various other relevant historical sites including historical news links (e.g. the link in history house under articles/railway.html in the Brentwood page), census results and other sources for historical information; 5. At the end of the day the ads are pretty minimal, easy to ignore and pretty much transparent to those seeking information and appear on many websites (including personal ones I've noticed) without any malicious intent.

It is my belief that these links are worthwhile and ticks pretty much all the boxes for External Links. They support other Wikipedia policies including that of not putting material into Wikipedia that is already maintained elsewhere (I'm sure there is a proper Wikilink for that as well but I'm not that much of a Wiki-boff). I accept that this appears to have some appearance of being a 'multi-site spam' link but the fact that each link is actually different, is tailored to each site and is relevant and with merit surely means it ought be whitelisted in order to be acceptable. DaveK@BTC (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#historyhouse.co.uk
While some external links may be permitted by the External links Guideline, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy to be included. Links to this site were repeatedly added despite the obvious community disapproval and against Wikipedia policies. Rationale for placing the link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage.
Here are the applicable Policies:
Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a "Verifiable Reliable Source"--Hu12 (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had two interviews links (from online personals watch) were taken off the Plenty of Fish wikipedia site. They were listed under external links with the other interviews that Markus has had. These are the latest new hits that Online Personals Watch has gotten (like the Chicago Tribune, etc): onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com/news/in-the-press.html He has started guest writing for TechCrunch, and has been quoted as an expert in New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc. He's interviewed the CEO's of all the major dating sites. Here's the list: onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com/news/all_executive_interviews.html

He also personally interviewed James Wales in June 'o6: onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com/news/2006/06/online_personal_2.html

This is a notable link that should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blm0303 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hu12 (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

76.27.88.6

I see you're reverting edits by 76.27.88.6 (talk · contribs). Is there a reason? They look good to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEO spam (note the common LoveToKnow site), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#LoveToKnow_Corp_Spam. Needs much more looking into to gather all the IP and socks.--Hu12 (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'll try to help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my addition on how to do "Harvard" or author-date referencing

Hi, can you explain this edit? I added the "How to write them" section and retitled the rest to Background and Rules. If you look at the section on footnotes, it starts right off with instructions on how to do it. People trying to figure out how to cite on the Wikipedia article don't need to be lectured on the background as much as they need to know the mechanics. If they don't know the background and rules, then it's not as if they're hard to see in the next section. Also, if you look at my edit, it noted that the main article was retitled "Author-date referencing". OptimistBen | talk - contribs 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure it a fine addition, I didn't see any discusion for the change on the style guidelines talk page. perhaps i missed it? Unfortunatly your edit was followed by several vandalism edits, thus I reverted back to the previous "stable" / consensus version of the guideline. --Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no change in the guidelines, just a change in the presentation of the guidelines. I wasn't aware that improving presentation required a discussion on the Talk page. Rather, I thought people were encouraged to "be bold". Since the footnotes section has a mechanics part, I don't see why the author-date section shouldn't. So do I need to bring it up on the Talk page? OptimistBen | talk - contribs 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way its a {{style-guideline}} page which is intended to help keep the formatting, grammar and style of Wikipedia's articles consistent. Revisions should reflect consensus. Consensus is best achieved on the guideline's talk page.--Hu12 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the blacklisting of the Strumpette URL

In view of your comment: "Equally the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist is not a place to whitelist domains against the wishes of Arbcom decisions." I believe the Arbcom decision deserves to be reviewed and reversed. How does one go about appealing such decisions? Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the same as was suggested to you last June. However, it appears to be a blog/forum which are Links normally to be avoided. Even with sanctions lifted, It fails inclusion as a Reliable and Verifiable source. Sorry--Hu12 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, strumpette.com employed bad faith use of 25+ Tor network open proxies and zombie computers To Spam Wikipedia [48]. I'd say it would be a waste of time to further pursue this matter. --Hu12 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was a dumb thing for them to do. But can I ask: would it be possible to create an article for WP on Strumpette using independently verifiable sources? There's been a lot of media coverage on Strumpette, and it is notable within the PR/marcom world. Please advise me on my talk page if it is okay to create an article on this subject. Thanks for your time, input and patience. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am growing conrcerned about your connection and persistance on this issue. I'd say it would be a waste of time to further pursue this matter.--Hu12 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coller Capital

Please note I have added this page back and have addressed some of your concerns about copyright issues. I did not write the original article (it looks like it was done by an employee) but I think you will agree as written it should be acceptable. I have been working on making some changes to this article and would appreciate it if you would leave it as is. It is also challenging if you delete a page without warning (particularly since it was created several weeks ago) Thanks for your help Urbanrenewal (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington Partners

Please note you have now deleted two pages Coller Capital and Lexington Partners. I am not sure what the rationale you are using is as I am very clearly not advertising for all of these firms which compete against each other and I have corrected what you perceived as a copyright issue (that I did not create). They are notable firms (refer to some of the other firms listed in the Private Equity Firms category) and the writing is generally not biased, particularly when comparing one to another. I would appreciate it if you would undo what you have done and leave this group of articles for further review and comment which I believe would be more productive than deleting the pages altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanrenewal (talk • contribs) 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G11 Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be advertising when I just created two pages for two arch-rival companies. If you think about it you will realize that makes no sense. I understand what you are trying to do but I just put in the time to write this and I think you are acting arbitrarily here.Urbanrenewal (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hu12 (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by your aggressive deletions

I am trying to add some material on three competing firms. I work for a fourth that is already on wikipedia and thought it would be helpful rather than having links go directly to a website. There is really very little that i would consider advertising on any of the pages. I would greatly appreciate it if you would cite some specific issues rather than deleting pages. I have no desire to engage in a dispute with you but I really think you are being a little too aggressive and ít should be left on the site for people to revise as necessary. I guarantee people will make changes and you will have richer content as a result. Thanks in advance.

Given the time I am not going to do any more this evening but would appreciate it if you would restore the pages otherwise I will have wasted the last hour and a half of my life gathering this stuff to put on hereUrbanrenewal (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hu12 (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~ Thanks

Is there a way to enlist a second opinion or at least elicit a written response rather than you placing links to FAQs. I understand what you are trying to do and looking at the various private equity firms that are already on wikipedia I think you are not being entirely consistent with precedents. I would ask that you stop and allow other people to provide their input. For example your deletion of a section on the Private equity secondary market page that has been edited and revised by numerous people for months should be evidence that this can be settled by users rather than unilaterally. And interestingly you left the one paragraph of that section that is the most blatant advertising. I don't think you are giving proper respect to the context in which you are making your edits. I applaud your efforts and would ask for you to cool off on this matter before doing anything further. Urbanrenewal (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I believe am completely objective here and have no interest in either page personally other than the time invested in writing the articles. I would like to resolve this -- can you suggest a course of action where these pages are added since I think you will agree that they are both notable. **Wikipedia:Dispute_ResolutionUrbanrenewal (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left some notes on your talk page.--Hu12 (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • I noticed the issue you had with the page I was working on off of my user page. This is a work in progress and I was under the impression this was the best way to do this in order to make a case to have the restrictions lifted. My understanding this territory was acceptable to work on a page that is not quite ready for full scrutiny. If this is in error can you please let me know in the future how best to create an article without having it immediately set for deletion. I would appreciate any feedback you can give to avoid this problem in the future as I think you can agree I am just trying to add what I think is valuable content and am honestly a little discouraged from doing so on the basis of this experience... Urbanrenewal (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Coller

Hey there. Just wanted to let you know I looked at this article that you tagged for speedy deletion, and felt that the claim of founding a major financial firm would probably be considered an assertion of notability. I'm not averse to an AFD if you feel it's needed. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your correct, it does assert that..doh. I only came accross some PR pieces. I'll bring it to AFD for broader consensus. Appreciate the note. ;)Cheers --Hu12 (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Incipient edit war at User:Videmus Omnia

As always, Hu12, thanks for your advice and help. While I disagree somewhat with your idea, I encourage you to comment at WP:ANI to help build some neutral admin consensus.I very much trust your judgement. My further involvement would just fan a dispute we'd all like to calm. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out..I'm of the opinion, from (Pulp fiction)..Marsellus: "And when you're gone, you stay gone, or you be gone.".. LOL.--Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember giving him a barnstar under his other account, lots of turmoil in dec/jan under user VO acct though.--Hu12 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I realise I got the page move wrong on Galaxy (I didn't notice the spaces, the swine!) so thanks for correcting it. I have been trying the past few minutes, but the database was locked. Stephenb (Talk) 09:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the spaces got me too (as did the database). Thanks Stephen ;)--Hu12 (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of that particular vandal... Talk:House (TV series) has been broken. For some reason, the real talk page is now at [[Talk:House (TV<CR> series]] where <CR> is a carriage return. I've no idea how to move that back, as Move Page seems to think that it has the same name. Any ideas? Stephenb (Talk) 09:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, in the time I took to write that, someone's done it :) Stephenb (Talk) 09:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:empirecontact

When you post a message about a blacklisted link, could you "nowiki" it? otherwise nobody else can post a message on the talk page (since the edit will involve a blacklisted URL). thanks. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about spam blocks

Hi, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on a spam block I placed a couple weeks ago. I noticed this user's entire contributing history over three years was to spam links to file sharing place dot be, a site that distributes an illegal pirate modification of Kazaa, and so decided to apply a standard spamblock using the same standards I would for a promotional username block or vandal-only block. Now, they're making wild accusations of me having a "conflict of interest" (the second stage of WP:GRIEF, I know ) so I figured it would be best to step away this point. I wanted your opinion on a couple of things though: 1/ was it proper to block the account in the first place, 2/ should we allow them a second chance, and 3/ was it proper to block the account even though the last incidence of spam was a month before the block? Please get back to me on my talkpage. east.718 at 14:38, April 30, 2008

FisherQueen beat me to it, however I left some notes under the decline. Good block, obviously sneaky spamming with a COI.--Hu12 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the sanity check, I truly appreciate it. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you need assistance of any kind. east.718 at 17:20, April 30, 2008

FYI

I have removed a template linking an IP to an active account [49]. The IP was not publicly confirmed in the checkuser (presumably due to privacy issues) so I think its probably best that we respect that and not advertise the fact, especially when the risk from the IP is very low. Rockpocket 01:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a Compromise

Hu12 --

I want to seek out a WP:TRUCE with you since you seem convinced that I am some sort of negative influence and I would like to try to convince you otherwise. I looked through your last post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and while you do not seem inclined to believe me, I want to let you know that my intentions have been good throughout.

In certain cases, early last year, I created a few pages where most of the material was based on the firm's own website. I recognize that this was not the best way to have done it but I do not have a COI nor am I trying to advertise for any particular firm as you can see from the breadth of the topics I was trying to address either by creating new pages or modifying others. There are probably dozens of other articles that I have never edited in the private equity space that have had similar issues to those you associated me with. In most cases, I was just lazily trying to put something out there that others would modify because I notice a trend toward being more willing to edit than to write. Not an excuse, just an explanation.

I personally would consider it a favor if you would remove my name from your posting as I genuinely think it doesn't have a place on there with bogus websites and people who are aggressively advertising a company, etc. I have no connection with the other users you listed and have noticed some of the issues you cited and cannot speak for their motivations. I am not sure if I can conclude anything definitively about the timing of the page creations other than that it looks like Wikiwikiwiki01 is guiltier of following up pages I created with objectionable material (I can't tell what was on the page). I have from time to time scanned through the list of firms included / selected for deletion / not included in the universe of private equity firms and tried to save a specific topic by adding back something that was a good topic covered by a poor editor. And I do freely admit that what precipitated my most recent group of articles was (1) an attempt to rewrite the Coller Capital article that another author had written which looks like it was originally a blatant advertisement and frankly (2) your harsh treatment of my work. Incidentally, your most recent item regarding the altassets website was the strangest of all since I was just using that as a reference point (linking to specific articles that referred to the topics I was adding) not as a means to promote the website.

As far as the listings of the topics, my primary issue is that particularly for those firms where I created the page I would hate to have them receive a black mark because of my efforts. I am going on vacation this weekend and will take this opportunity to look over the entire body of what I have done. Ideally, I would like to have you validate my contributions and try to put this behind us.

Thanks Urbanrenewal (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't notice a response in this section, on my talk page or on the relevant page. I would much prefer you reviewing your submissions rather than asking for a third party to review it. Urbanrenewal (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check this out, please?

Hey there. Could you drop by Editor Assistance and see if you can sort out the issue with this request? I have no idea how to negotiate the blacklist to find the site mentioned in there. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cant find it it either most likely on meta, but did not see it there. For future reference check MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log and m:Spam_blacklist/log. I'll leave my 2 cents on the request;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Meta has an entry for: "\beleuthera-bahamas\.com\b", which is what's likely catching the requestor's site "discover-eleuthera-bahamas.com". If it's appropriate that it be caught by that block is another question; I haven't checked the reasons for Meta's block, nor have I checked the site in question. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that entry, I don't think its related to this site and was "caught" by the regex rule. however a little research shoews there are other sites connected to this, that may have been blacklisted. it appears this may be a test to see if the site was blacklisted. i'll have more.--Hu12 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, however I've added a comment. --Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you removed external links for Harbour Island [50] but left other external links intact. Based on WP:EL, should the other links be removed as well? SurfsUp (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hu. Your reply to previous question would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. SurfsUp (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Government and government sanctioned sites are typically fine, unless they are restricted from linking .--Hu12 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hu. I was referring to the link to briland.com. Once you get past the first page, I see a number of commercial links. I'm also wondering whether the link for the Island School on the Eleuthera page is appropriate. Seems to be about the school as opposed to being about Eleuthera. And then there's a whole paragraph about the school in the main body. What do you think? Thanks again for your time. SurfsUp (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The school link should go, best suited on an article about the school (not that there should be such an article), its indirectly related to the article's subject WP:EL #13. Perhaps as a citation (if appropriately used in an appropriate context), however a trivial mention (blurb) shouldn’t warrant directing users off wiki to a topic irrelevant site. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My impression based on your notes and my read of WP:EL #13 would be to remove the paragraph in the main body regarding the school. Do you agree? Thanks for taking the time, Hu. This has been a good learning experience. SurfsUp (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC Partners

I've restored BC Partners. It's a very important company. --Duk 00:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data recovery

Hi - maybe you will have an opinion or suggestion on this. I've noticed before you've done some spam removal on Data recovery. One persistent spammer is user:EASEUS, adding links to http://www.easeus.com

With a likely sockpuppet, created today (see see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/EASEUS):

Qiongeramber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

...that has, today alone, recreated 4 times, a page Data recovery wizard previously deleted as per AfD. The AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EASEUS_Data_Recovery_Wizard_Professinal


And is now spamming the page with this new account user:Qiongeramber and these IP accounts:


216.40.204.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
222.212.98.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
125.66.97.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
125.69.27.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.154.13.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
222.212.104.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Should this be moved to an admininstrator's noticeboard?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsendero (talk • contribs) 12:31, 4 May 2008

Seems like an issue, please  Defer to Local blacklist, Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - done. Elsendero (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. Should not be an issue any more. Persistant spammers such as this may try to subvert blacklisting by creating redirect sites or hidden urls (FYI). Cheers ;)--Hu12 (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

Hey there! Remember me from the Simple English Wikipedia? Well guess what? I've decided to come over here and start to edit a lot (which I have been doing). I've also decided to become an administrator on this Wikipedia too. Cheers, Razorflame 17:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Razorflame, we can use more hard working admins. Impressive body of work on simple.wikipedia.org, wiki.riteme.site would certainly benifit from having you around more. --Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words! I will make sure that I live up to the expectations! I hope we might be able to work together in the future! Cheers, Razorflame 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random9 is back

You had blocked User:Random9 for his continual attempts to spam; well, he seems to be back, now as User:Infoboy2008. I'm not sure the correct procedure. Tb (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts blocked, site blacklisted. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Removal_of_Spam_Listing. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DM. --Hu12 (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there a reason why you reverted here. Unless I am missing something, the IP was right, there is a current RFB, thus it shouldnt say that there isnt any nominations. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops--Hu12 (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol :) thought it was a mistake. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need some old admin wisdom again

Hi Hu12. Recently a editor who I had blocked for 3RR, User:Red4tribe, removed his own block notice and unblock request from his Talk page. Since this did not seem kosher, I reverted his Talk page and gave it full protection for the remainder of his block. Is this appropriate, or should I have let it go? He wasn't actually vandalizing the page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block and block review records should remain for at least the duration of the block. Disruption, Page blanking, removal of content or templates during this block period, is inapropriate and the protection seems appropriate here.--Hu12 (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin school screencap change

Hi there.

Since random character usernames are no longer blockable on sight, I have replaced User:Aefaslkjowefwef with User:Keegaṇ. Could you modify Image:ThisIsaTestU-NAS.PNG to reflect this change? Keegantalk 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Hu12 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube video could be allowed in the article on Theodosius Dobzhansky?

Hello Hu12! Per this discussion, an editor proposes a link to a YouTube video containing footage of the famous evolutionist. He asserts he is the copyright owner of the video (I can follow up to verify that). The video does contain an interview with a grad student of Dobzhansky and shows the latter working in the field, using his collection methods. In my view WP:EL would allow this, since it is informative and helpful, though the video is self-published. In your opinion, is there a case for inclusion? XLinkbot removed the link but I wanted to check the overall situation first. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded a bit on some additional concerns. --Hu12 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livestation

Please do not just remove valid references without any explanation whatsoever. Especially when you have been undone, explain to other editors your reasoning. --soum talk 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people/T

Hi, I see you removed a reference to Mary Tate (bishop) from the page mentioned above.

I wonder if this is a misunderstanding - after all, the Find-A-Grave list is a listing of people who might be worth *adding* to Wikipedia, not a list of articles on Wikipedia, so it is natural that the link is red. Your edit summary says "deleted article", but the article, as far as I can see, never existed - what am I not understanding? --Alvestrand (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping you might consider the bulk removal and labelling as spam for all links to drivingfast.net, I believe the content is informative, authoritative and relevent for various driving pages of Wikipedia. The use I'm sure if you take them time to have a look through the content you'll see that it's information rich and very light on ads. It's certainly not commercially orientated. Really appreciate it if you could take them time. Many thanks

Jonnogibbo (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

info --Herby talk thyme 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wfgh66

Could you unprotect his page? I think he wants to talk, he's sent me two emails and I'll be happy to reply on his talk page. Thanks, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits by OTRS agents

This edit of yours troubles me. Not only did you revert without discussing it with the OTRS agent first, you included no summary. Please take care to fully discuss OTRS actions with the person concerned before reversing them. WjBscribe 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy blanking per OTRS 2008051310027978. Spammer spams, then vandalizes ([51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]) then attempts to get instances of the multiple policy violations deleted. Archives are no follow and are not indexed by google, and are a matter of record. While multiple user pages were deleted, there is no reason for report records removal.--Hu12 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you reviewed the ticket? Your view that "there is no reason for report records removal" is otherwise based on supposition. In any event, my point is that you should be discussing this with the OTRS agent concerned, not coming to your own conclusions based solely on how serious you view the spam issue to have been. WjBscribe 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly evident the 15 attempts to delete abuse records resulted in this, however more that the two were removed including important spam/vandalism and abuse archives. While I appreciate the time OTRS volunteers put in it is not carte blanche to make arbitrary actions not requested. Our records are required to be transparent for accountability. Our obligation is to ensure our records are correct and factual to protect Wikipedia-- not to make them go away.--Hu12 (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view: I was troubled by this whole incident. I am not going to get into the rights and wrongs of the history of these blankings and reverts. Rather, from a spam control standpoint, we use these records to track spam. Without them, a spammer keeps spamming, getting level 1 warnings, then moving on to fresh IPs and/or user names. All it takes is resetting a modem. With these records, we can track this stuff and blacklist it if it gets bad enough. Most of my 25,000 or so edits on this and other projects have involved large scale, complex spam clean-up and mitigation, so I've seen this over and over again.

If we just blacklist this guy's domains while blanking his records, would that be acceptable? That would ensure we get no further abuse (this guy's links are not encyclopaedic). We would reference obscure permalinks in our blacklist log entry and the blacklist entry itself would be regex gobbledy-gook not picked up on a Google search for "serioussoft.com":

\bserioussoft\.com\b

See these for examples of what I'm talking about:

Finally, I'll note that our obligations to this guy are to tell the truth, not to make him happy. Our servers are in the U.S.A. where the libel laws are quite particular: an assertion can never be deemed libel if it is a statement of actual fact. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to comment on this. I see sometimes OTRS agents deleting COIBot-records which are part of active discussions or which are proof of blacklisting. I have, until now, not reverted these edits, and AFAIK did COIBot not regenerate one of these reports. I have stated this a couple of times, that if the reports are a result of a 'one time occasion', and after warnings the editor stopped and did agree to comply with our policies and guidelines, then I don't have any problems with deletion of the records (it would be good to inform a COIBot operator to remove the rules and to block the bot from further reporting, as we could end up again and again in the same situation), but if there is ongoing spamming, pushing, or even legal threats on wikipedia (as happened in one case on my talkpage, but where OTRS deleted a report; I even promised the editor in question to delete the report for him, after the thing was settled, but then he started with the legal threats), then I do NOT agree in unilateral deletion by OTRS, and I do even believe that these records should be regenerated. Also I do not feel obligated then to inform OTRS, especially when I have not been contacted by OTRS (my email is enabled).
These editors get enough warnings when editing wikipedia, still they do insist in adding their links, even sysops have warnings all around edit-boxes, and when creating accounts or when editing as an IP you also see warnings. As A. B., we are not here to make them happy, we have no obligation to delete their records, and if they respond friendly to warnings then I have no problem. If they don't care about our policies and guidelines, then I am also not caring too much. I can live with hiding the reports from google (though we miss a preventive part, it helps against these complaints, misreports, Joe jobs etc.), but I do not agree with blanking of records when they are persistent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that unless there was some sort of e-mail or IRC consensus between the OTRS team and Hu12, I think this incident has some of the flavor of wheel-warring. Going forward, I think anti-spam volunteers need to be respectful of OTRS actions however OTRS volunteers should probably not unilaterally delete spam-tracking records unless there is sort of attempt to contact the anti-spam folks. Somewhat akin to the work done by specialists at WikiProject Open Proxy, there are specialized tools, cross-wiki teams and off-wiki sites that volunteers with specialized knowledge use in dealing with complex, multi-account spam problems. We'll get a better outcome for Wikimedia's projects if our two teams communicate. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S_Charette sockpuppet?

I saw today that you blocked S_Charette as a sockpuppet of Taddeus45. Is it possible that this is a case of mistaken identity? I've been looking at the contribs of others who were blocked as sockpuppets and the history of these users does not come anywhere near matching that of S_Charette. The reason I bring this up is that I've edited pages with S_Charette before - see Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest, and he has been impersonated before (see his archive4)where he was impersonated by a user using the username S-Charete. I'm a novice at wikipedia and perhaps there is more to this than I can see, but I just thought I would bring this up. --Renrenren (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12. I've been bold and unblocked S_charette, who I believe is a good user caught in a mistaken identity case. It appears that the spammer caught by the checkuser uses the same IP range in the same Canadian town, but on looking at S_charette's contribs I see nothing else related; he has quite a long history of being a good editor, and I've worked with him in the past. If I'm wrong feel free to overrule me; I won't unblock again, and recognize that I too can be mistaken. I'm leaving a message for the checkuser (Thatcher) separately. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Taddeus45. Contribution history has little to do with this case. This was the only account not initialy blocked after being confirmed by checkuser. I left this account unblocked and when the core IP was used by two more of the sock accounts it confirmed that they are connected with this account.
  1. Garreck (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. S charette (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Jackie256‎ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
None of the second identity sock puppets edited the mainspace, indicative of operating one account "clean", while using others to engage in disruptive behavior. See WikiProject Spam Item (1) / See WikiProject Spam report (2). Please reblock--Hu12 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can contribution history not have a bearing on this situation? S_Charette has a history of editing wikipedia dating back to 2006. --Renrenren (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to better understand. Also "Good hand, bad hand" accounts do not have similar contribution histories. Plenty of Sock puppet cases where long term good hand accounts, used bad hand accounts. S_Charette did infact use one of the proxies that the other accounts had in common, this is why the account landed on the sockpppet list. Certainly a good reason to never use proxies on wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. When I look at the contribs for Garreck and Jackie256, it comes up with nothing. How did my account get associated with them? --Stéphane Charette (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there Deleted contribs [66] [67], only administrators can view them.--Hu12 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So...? What else can I do then to show you that I have nothing to do with the other people you've blocked? My reputation as to who I am on Wikipedia and the type of contributor I am is 100% dependant on my contribs, my talk page, and my user page. Today, my talk page was changed to a sockpuppet template, my talk page is now full of content about me being a spammer/sockpuppet, I found myself unable to edit any page, and you've stated that "Contribution history has little to do with this case." What a disaster! I don't like the whole my-word-against-your-word argument, because anyone can *claim* anything. But is there a way to prove it somehow? Is there anything that can be done with those accounts or my account to show that it was a mistake and the usernames in question are not related? --Stéphane Charette (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You switched to using a local non-proxy ISP, and were only on one of the proxies that the other accounts had in common. Certainly a good reason to avoid using proxies in the future. Consider this resolved. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I don't use a proxy. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did. Avoid using proxies in the future and this sort of thing won't repeat.--Hu12 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I run linux on my desktops. I know how my network is setup. On my résumé, you'd note I used to work for a company that made corporate proxies back in 2001-2003. Therefore, I know what they are. And I can tell you I don't go through a proxy. Unless you tell me that Canada's largest ISP runs transparent proxies, in which case, you're telling me my account has been linked to a spammer simply because I happen to live in a large country in which a spammer resides...? I think collateral damage is *way* too high! This whole experience has been very disturbing. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that

It must be my stupid computer... didn't see that. Apologies for any damage I've done. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed it was in error. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Grove

What does the status of Coconut Grove have to do with this edit? If you expand the section found at the bottom of the article: Municipalities and communities of Miami-Dade County, Florida you will see a list of about 70 other places that could be inserted at this point. I simply can't see why Midtown should be listed here. It is in the section called "See also". What are you going to see there that has anything at all to do with Coconut Grove?

I see you are an administrator. You must know a lot. Why in the world are articles junked up by making external references of words like furniture or nightlife ? GroveGuy (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a "see also" section, removing relatated neighborhoods which are also located within the city does not make sense. I see none of the other irrelevant links you mention in that article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)--Hu12 (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key word here is "related". While Brickell is contiguous to the Grove, Midtown has no relationship at all to Coconut Grove that I can discern. On the second matter, since you couldn't see the irrelevant links, I took some of them out.GroveGuy (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What spam?

Hi, I don't understand why you have deleted the additions I had made concerning a lot of pages about gender. I thought that the wikigender link was useful information. Would you be so kind to explain me why you did them? Wanda007 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to wikipedia under Wanda007 and related (see your talkpage), consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be external link related only.
wikigender links:
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
Additionaly see
You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?--Hu12 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I'm sure you'd love to chime in here: User talk:Oe65 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added a short comment and some links to evidence. Its rather a sad situation this user has gotten into.--Hu12 (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thoughts?

Hi,

I'd like your thoughts on this link the user is trying to add. I keep letting myself get drawn into edit wars and frankly I need to stop. Thanks. Montco (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverting persistant linkspam, isn't a 3rr violation (incase your wondering). He's blocked for 24 for spam warring. also added a report here. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help and the star. We do our best in the endless battle.Montco (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the link blatantly fails WP:EL, if this spamming continues there are other measures for that behavior. thanks again. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Hi Hu12. Thought I'd let you know that a comment from an IP, probably the sockpuppet you spoke of earlier, was left on RFPP. I removed it, but here's the diff just for reference.[68] Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that, thanks. sock puppet of spammer User:Webapp, See [69][70][71] and User_talk:Oe65--Hu12 (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I unspam lyrikline.org?

On Jan 24 you deleted links to above poetry site as part of WP:SPAM. As far as I can tell from your contribs, there were only thirteen (maybe 4/5 added by myself). The site does not carry advertising, there was obviously no 'campaign' to link to the site and the links were useful as bio sources and more importantly examples of the authors poetry (in a couple of cases apparently the only examples online). How do I go about 'appealing' this action? (I can't find any instructions on the project page.) Thanks in advance, Ben.--Bsnowball (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears there was serious cross wiki/Wikimedia wide spamming. see this. If a specific link is needed as a citation, I would be happy to whitelist it on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a Verifiable and Reliable Source. Would seem there are plenty of reasonable alternatives available.--Hu12 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How do i unspam codes-vouchers.com and redflagdeals.com?

i've added the update on the talk page - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:78.105.55.251 i had lost my password and got it emailed so now i'm logged in. had ZERO intention of spamming. will gladly remove the links. i've added an explanation. i thought the coupon site was legit. also, the chris ward watch thing was a stub and i added. perhaps adding a link to my own site was inappropriate. feel free to remove that. however the article is a good one as it gives a good history or a wathcmaker reviving the lost art of british watchmaking. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gra deals (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. additionaly they are Links normally to be avoided. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site.--Hu12 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - cool. now can i have the two sites removed from the spam list since there was no intention and the articles are gone. also i'm particularly concerned since red flag deals had nothing to do with it and i don't want them getting any negative publicity or anything because of an error in judgement on my part. please let me know what to do to get the websites removed from the spam list. thanks. also i'm adding on the whole 'unsigned thing' - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gra deals (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC). i'm new so apologize in advance - however i don't want to get on some spam list for making a newbie mistake - does that sound reasonable? Gra deals (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, however our records are required to be transparent for accountability. We are the seventh largest site in the world and when you submit content you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. I'm sure you understand. I have removed the "spam" prefix from the urls on your IP talk page. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please don't keep deleting this link -- certainly, the journal bearing the name of the wikipedia article is notable. For example, see the wikipedia entry under "Organic Chemistry" -- I could find other examples, but shouldn't need to.

I am re-adding it. If you want to continue the discussion we can go point by point with a mediator, or you can begin discussion on the talk page. Jheiv (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding R.T. Edwards, Inc links, clearly violates External links policy and Advertising and conflicts of interest. we do not promote products and services--Hu12 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to need a third party to mediate this. I am submitting a request. Thanks. Jheiv (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#R.T._Edwards.2C_Inc_links--Hu12 (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt for a resolution, I've added a point of discussion in the talk page, as well as listed it as an active dispute under Wikipedia: third opinion. If it is indeed deemed to be spam, I apologize -- I just do believe that it is a valid link. Thanks Jheiv (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heres a few things to review.
I have reviewed them, I apologize for not disclosing any sort of COI -- I now realize there is a procedure for disclosing and I believe I have done so with a "Request Edit" tag under the talk page. If you could remove the link from the spam directory in the meantime, I will rely on whatever the consensus / third party interpretation of the validity of the link. Thanks Jheiv (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I did, to prevent any misinterpretations of my intention -- it should also be said that it is not my Journal, nor do I work for the company -- but I can see how a COI could be construed: "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree—try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant." Thanks Jheiv (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since, it has been shown that the website in question may, in fact, be valuable to wikipedia Talk:Forensic accounting, can you remove this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#R.T._Edwards.2C_Inc_links? Thanks Jheiv (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our records are required to be transparent for accountability. We are the seventh largest site in the world and when you submit content you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. You do appear, based on your edit history, to exist for the sole and primary purpose of promoting R.T. Edwards publications in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited means of adding good content to Wikipedia, however I do feel that the additions I made on the Forensic Accounting / Journal of Forensic Accounting pages are genuinely good and beneficial additions. I recognize the perceived CoI, however, I no longer work for the company. I have edited the article in my userspace to what I think is notable. Can we put it back in the article space, then add the Proposed Deletion tag and let the community decide? That is, in fact, what Wikipedia is, a community. Jheiv (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, I think these are good faith additions of possible notable topics, and your repeated attempts to delete the articles via speedy are an over-extensive use of your administrative function. We strongly discourage edits from people with apparent COI, but we do not prohibit it. Let the articles be written, and let them get to Afd, and let the community decide on this. Personally, I have rather strong doubts about the possible notability of these, but I want to see first what can be made of the articles. You've gotten personally involved, and should not take further administrative actions here. DGG (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting cross namespace redirects are non-controversial. As both myself and the 3O said on Talk:Forensic_accounting#Third_opinion it needs to be written within the policies and guidelines for WP content thus why the page was userfied. Spamming links and creating articles in which there is a Conflict of interest is never acceptable, as it violates core principle of Wikipedia including neutral point of view. Forum shopping and using brute force until he gets what he wants rather than discussion, is never a sign of good faith. Engaging in edit wars, spamming, disruption and violating other Policies and guidelines, All in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines is clearly a reason to have ones editing access removed. Obviously this user is inexperienced and fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia's objective in keeping with NPOV and what Wikipedia is Not, perhaps you should adopt Jheiv and help teach him the ins and outs of Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to do just that, as I often do for people from the academic world or publishing. If the eventual article is unwarranted, I will myself try to get it deleted. I've done this before for journals that are not notable, and I've gotten rid of a lot of spam from publishers--and stopped a lot more at source. I do not disagree with removing spam from wp--I don't keep track, but I must have removed at least a dozen instances today of linkspam, and a dozen or so spam articles. That's not as many as you manage, of course, but I try & will keep trying. 04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk)

Your opinion

Spam-only account? Spellcast (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very definition of a Spam / advertising-only account.--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bagged tagged, blocked and blacklisted. See See WikiProject Spam report. We can whitelist individual reviews on a case by case basis, but this an excessive violation of anti-spam guidelines ( using multiple IP ranges). cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of doing a mass revert, but I wanted a second opinion. Anyway, thanks for digging through the site and cleaning up the mess. Much appreciated, Spellcast (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I'd find another one, but this also looks like a spam/ad-only account. He claims to be the owner of the site. I'm not sure if it's worth blacklisting though. Spellcast (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Label?

It is with disgust that I read your notes on my contributions, contributions which you labeled as SPAM. If you even bothered to check my points, you would have seen that my contributions were not only good, but necessary in order to provide updated information. Thank you for not being objective and for not reading the RELEVANT info I pointed at. Seems you're a big boss on Wikipedia; I just wished you had more analytical skills. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmgmem (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is, just as every encyclopedia, based on content, not on links to other sites. We are writing such an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm, nor an internet directory. Your contributions are mainly link additions, which are considered spam here. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask for your help as I see that you work on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log - sorry the discussion instructions just completely confused me (along with the "message" page redirecting to the "discussion" where I was about to try and post my query before realising that I would be disrupting the system) and I've no idea on regex.

In essence I seek to have blocked www.myorehab.net/articles/article-archive.htm and www.AIMS-LLC.org which both link to MyoRehab clinic and have been repeatedly spammed into mutliple article on musculoskeletal disorders by two registered users (Myofascial (talk · contribs) and Strhoppr (talk · contribs) - both now indefinitely blocked) and two IPs (68.35.21.191 (talk · contribs) temp blocked for second time this year, and 69.49.164.173 (talk · contribs) used just once and seems inactive now). Their sole edits were only adding these spam links - and so clearly are sockpuppets if not at least meatpuppets (which is the same thing as per WP:MEAT). Given therefore multiple accounts being used, I think the two web addresses need to be blocked. Many thanks David Ruben Talk 01:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the regex for each is

\bmyorehab\.net\/articles\/article-archive\.htm
\bAIMS-LLC\.org\b

Add them to the bottom of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. This is the actual blacklist. be sure to remove any remaining urls from articles and remove the http:// from discussion pages (like in your post above)). Use the search feature to track them down (archived or those on non active pages need not be removed).
After that, log (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log) a link to the evidence (any type of effective linking will do) to the bottom of the appropriate month (Which is MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log#May_2008). shoud resemble this.
#:                             # Davidruben   # See (your link to evidence)

\bmyorehab\.net\/articles\/article-archive\.htm 

\bAIMS-LLC\.org\b

Note the space before the regexed urls (and #), these spaces are only added in the logging area. May want to use \bmyorehab\.net\b in place of \bmyorehab\.net\/articles\/article-archive\.htm, that way it blocks all links within and to the site, not just to that one single page on myorehab.net. that would look like this 


#:                             # Davidruben   # See (your link to evidence)

\bmyorehab\.net\b 

\bAIMS-LLC\.org\b
Your call on what you want blacklisted. Give those a try, if you if you need more help let me know.--Hu12 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more spamming IP's
69.254.145.194 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
76.18.91.50 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.184.13.230 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks (and for additional IPs) -hope I've edited the various pages OK. (I've removed the http://) David Ruben Talk 03:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. I removed this, although you can add comments there, it best when linking to keep them on the log page (as you did). Reason being the page doesn't allow for linking. --Hu12 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum

Me or is this more than a little COI? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be one of those days --Herby talk thyme 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

musicmasteringonline.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
pathetic--Hu12 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair warning to you. Do not revert my deleting the libelous wording against Musimasteringonline.com, which did not spam Wikipedia. If you think that' not the case back it up with solid proof. Leave it on my talk page for my review. Thanks for your cooperation. Jrod2 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you obviously have a problem, Mr. Admin. One more time and I will report you for abuse. (Joe Job?) If you continue reverting the false libelous accusations against my online company without any proof, I will have to take other steps to make you stop. Jrod2 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're refering to something from March 2007. Recently you tried to delete your IP Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:162.83.209.26 which was declined yet you delete any way[72]. After looking at discusions that took place since then (including the deleted ones), I'm affraid you had a problem impersonating Edward Vinatea, and even created an account of the same name. this is called a joe job. also musicmasteringonline.com is registered to you. This reading was quite enlightening.
musicmasteringonline.com
Administrative Contact: Rodriguez, Joe [74]
http://whois.domaintools.com/musicmasteringonline.com
Accounts
Jrod2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Evinatea (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
162.83.204.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
162.83.209.26 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
I'm not sure which i find more despicable, the fact you were impersonating someone elses' identity to spam a link registered to you, or your posts above. You've proven yourself singularly disruptive and disputatious. --Hu12 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you? Are you a Biggy P? I can check user to find out. OK, Mr. Sherlock, first of all, I didn't impersonate anyone, get that through your head right now, OK? I came to WP on the last day of February or first day of March 2007, can't recall. I had no idea of how the rules worked with Wikipedia at the time. I didn't know that it would be filled with vigilante style users and overzealous admins. I was a newbie and created one or two pages (can't recall) on behalf of the mastering engineer, who I know well. That's it. I was told that wasn't the way it was done, so I let go, period. NOTHING was re-added, or reverted, or re-posted after the day I was told how things worked. And, that would have been the end of it had it not been by the user called User: Mike_Sorensen and User:Biggy_P who started to make accusations of spam just like you right now. If you found all that shit, well, that's because I was dealing with a major sock-puppeteer who forced me to defend myself. This user was a sick guy who in the end was banned as I was able to discover all his socks. So initially, I was a newbie who was abused and accused of being dishonest. Why don't you read the Community Sanction board first before making more assumptions. I know the engineer and he has told me after this issue at WP to post whatever I want, anywhere. So don't even start with spam BS. I know in year or so in WP, a whole bunch of users who have made similar mistakes and I don't go calling them SPAMMERS, because I assume freaking GOOD FAITH, does that sound familiar to you?.

Also, I will not tolerate your libel and the use of my engineer's name. So, I am striking your comments to prevent search engines picking up on your libel. Jrod2 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You recently removed a bunch of external links from Classless Inter-Domain Routing, something that I commonly do also. I was a little surprised at the ones you removed though. You left a bunch of online-calculator links, I suspect there are dozens more, but removed a bunch of others that didn't seem to be as much a violation to WP:EL to me. In particular, the bgp4.as site seems to have a lot of useful information that couldn't be easily incorporated the article, one of the criteria for good external links. Yeah, it has a large number of links rather than original content, but it is well organized and although wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, links to directories are ok. The other two links don't seem quite a useful but the seem to be less of a "make wikipedia a directory" than all the tools links you left.

I guess I'm curious about your logic. As I mentioned, I remove lots of links but my initial guess would have been to leave the links you removed, and remove the links you left. (Oh, and I'll watch your talk page for any replies you make here.) Wrs1864 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to clean out the others, that were overlooked. I was in pursuit of these linksWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_2#Marketing_Spamming and did not have time to weed out all the links that fail WP:EL. Sorry, for the delayed response.--Hu12 (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in my RfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved!--Hu12 (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SEOs using Commons

Here in case you are interested. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks H. This is concerning.--Hu12 (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of LNG terminals‎ (rmv non article entries per the purpose of lists and WP:NOT)

Could you point me to this policy? Thanks. ~ WikiDon (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiDon. Wikipedia:Lists#Purposes_of_lists, primarily "Information" and "Navigation" are the main concerns. While the English encyclopedia has 6,931,450 articles, this process deticating pages with "development" (redlinks) is no longer important. Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, unreferenced empty redlinks are unhelpful to readers and do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia. Collections of internal links (WP:NOT "except") those related to LNG terminals with articles, do assist with article organisation and navigation. Links in a list should be active (blue, not red). there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists, however I'm not to sure how active it is. Also, perhaps of interest is Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you took the list from 12,968 bytes to 4,124 bytes, from a fairly comprehensive list, to an incomplete shell with greatly diminished value. You broke the spirit of it, might as well delete the entire thing.
"...unreferenced empty redlinks are unhelpful..." You removed some that were referenced. Some that I spent a good deal of time researching and referencing.
Why not just de-Wikilinki them (remove the brackets) instead?
The list did provide information (it was fairly good at that) and "some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes." I thought just removing the dead-red brackets would be better instead of gutting it. I had hoped that by me cleaning it up and formatting it, and adding some, it would encourage others to do so also.
Now, I know that there have been some crappy additions from IPs, but, I feel that this will now be even worse, because they'll add back what you stripped out one crappy addition at a time, in all manner of different formatting. Which someone, like mean will have to cleanup, again.
I had planned on trying to fill in some of the terminals with their own article, but I think that there should be a complete (as much as possible) list. LNG is very important right now to global energy. And, will become increasingly so. ~ WikiDon (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ClockC ~ WikiDon (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should make a to-do on the articles talk page (which is provided for development and others can assist) of the "red-links" you feel have potential as articles. Once the articles have been written, then add that content (blue, not red) to the article space.--Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm sorry to keep bothering you with this, but since you're already familiar with the situation I thought it might be easier to just come to you. This dude just does not give up, he has added yet another link to the NCAA Football 09 article as seen with this diff. This time it is ncaa2009rosters.com. Can we get it blacklisted? Again, I'm sorry to bug you about this again. I know he is an IP, but is there perhaps a way we can give him a block for continued disregard of Wikipedia policies on spamming and ELs?►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check User:Zentrader

Please check User:Zentrader. It looks to me like a bunch of spam. Smallbones (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. good catch. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Trader_spamming --Hu12 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Could you please enlight me?

AFAIK this user never inserted "Spam". What´s then your rationale for this warning you placed at his/her talk page? [75]

Obviously I am missing something. Comment, please. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the users 81 article space contributions, 29 involve adding or reinserting the link debunkingprimaltherapy.com ([76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101]) and is considered WP:Spam. --Hu12 (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the exaustive nature of your response.
Nevertheless, at wp:spam I read: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual"
I see no "advertisements" at the disputed website, no "individual promotion" there and no service nor product is sold there. Could you please be more specific about what supports your accusation (and warning notice) of "spam" in that user´s talk page?. Randroide (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming is repeatedly adding links en mass (ie External link spamming).--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can not find that definition you gently provided of "spam" at WP:SPAM. Could you please tell me (roughly) where can I read that definition?. Excuse me for the fastidiousness of my requests, but I think that a warning note at a user page is a serious issue, and must be supported by rock hard evidence. Evidence I have not seen yet in this case. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Sampson

Restoring the low-quality edits at Thomas Sampson isn't in the encyclopedia's interests, is it? We don't need the material. It increases the chance that the article will get speedied again. And, as it was a reversal of previous admin action, you are suppoed to consult about it first.

I sent you an email a while ago. I don't seem to have had an answer. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles history wouldn't seem to be controversial, considering A) its currently a stable version, b) The disruption is comming from a single user and c) oversiting out the users contibs does not lend to transparancy, especialy since I've blocked the user for said disruption. Doubt the current stable version is at any risk of being speedied. However, feel free to make adjustments as you see fit. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an Oversight, since admins can read the non-restored edits. And there was that other matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone you know?

Guess you know this one ..

Herbythyme ran also into it, via another route .. -> this route

That led to:

Four random links:

With a pattern:

(Yes, I did not use that function before in COIBot)

Herby also pointed me here and here.

Guess it is time to start cross-linking the whole stuff ... there are a lot of socks and IPs busy with cross wiki spamming here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.Fm

I'm tring to understand why 1.Fm is getting deleted while other online radio stations are not. see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Di.Fm which does extactly what we do yet hasn't be removed. My goal is not the get ont the soapbox and blast 1.Fm everywhere but provide some history about us. We get tons of people tring to do what we do and think it important to share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubtech (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whitelist and blacklist

Cool! Thank you for the explanation :) I have archived the convo on the talk page so that it's visible on its current state and it doesn't get lost on the noise. However, I think that people is talking about adding the link also on the external links section, independently of the infobox already having one. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calfire

Hi,

When you marked up those sockpuppets I discovered that I still had that page and User:WebRidesTV on my watchlist. I don't know about the others, but their probably alright. However, I should point out that Calfire was not created in breach of policy but in accordance to it, since it was openly created after a {{UsernameBlocked}} was applied to the other account, as was reccomended to him. Therefore it is not really covered by 'sockpuppet' status IMHO. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Comparison of one-click hosters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of one-click hosters. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tikiwont (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies

Hello. I would ask that you please accept my deepest and sincerest apology for any confusion that my recent stupidity created online. I hope that you can accept the following as a token of my respect for your work:

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For putting 110% into your work and for keeping Wikipedia safe from vandals and other digital hoodlums. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again. And I promise that I will be much, much more careful in my future editing. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Enough, thanks for the note, Ecoleetage. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, I am very sorry. I appreciate your hard work. As A.B. requested, I deleted those links. Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clapton

Although I don't question your good faith, I wonder why you made these deletions? Ward3001 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Richtig27 see his talkpage. If those are useful, please feel free to add the relevent links back yourself, they were origionaly added from an obvious promotional account. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skater girl page moves

Thanks for spotting those moves and reverting them. Much appreciated. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Check your archives to be sure all of the vandalism has been reverted. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting vandalism while i was sleeping. Appreciate your looking out for my page/s, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome. Double check your subpages and archives to make sure all is in order. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True.com redirect

Hi, I noticed you deleted the True.com redirect for True (dating service), citing WP:CSD#R3. I don't understand how True.com qualifies for that, considering that True itself doesn't seem to know what it wants to call itself (True's website seems to alternate between True and True.com). I was going to restore the redirect, but I thought I would ask first if I'm missing something. Thanks. Purifiedwater (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive restored the redirect.--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seed of spam?

Sorry to bother, again, but is this the beginning of what could be a spammer:Webstreetnet? After today's misadventure, I want to make an effort to help fight spam here. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup (webstreetnet.com), the account has been {{usernameblock}}. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank goodness -- I did something right today! Thanks, again! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've done alot of good stuff, one misstep shoulden't overshadow that. I've closed the other discussion so we all can get back to building the encyclopedia. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syndey Smith / Forensic Examiner

See Talk:Sydney Smith (forensic expert) for a question about your edit in May. Thanks... -Colfer2 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locating spammer, but now what?

Hello again! This morning I came upon this guy dropping spam links: [102]. I reverted his edits and gave a Level 1 warning about such activities. But as a non-admin, I am capable of adding the URLs he dropped to the Spam Blacklist? Or should I pass this on to you, A.B. or another admin? I am sorry if the question is elementary, but this is still relatively new to me. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the link is fine from the talk page as its considered Source soliciting (and you warned appropriatly). The spam blacklist is for wide spread additions, muliple sock / IP additions or repeated additions after multiple warnings to stop adding said links. Although the site seems to fail External links policy, it has yet to be on the level of blacklisting. --Hu12 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks for the guidance. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Vinci Surgical System

Hi Hu12 - I noticed that you recently deleted Da Vinci Surgical System for "blatant advertising", and I'd like you to to restore the article so that the content can be improved and the deletion discussed. I don't know how the article was written, but I think even if it bordered advertising, the system itself is tremendously notable, as it is one of the first and most successful surgical robotic systems. It is of great value our WikiProject, WikiProject Robotics. Thanks! --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps integrating notable context into Intuitive Surgical.--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable regardless of the company, but sure, I briefly cleaned up Intuitive Surgical.--Jiuguang Wang (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they are now creating Cross wiki spam articles. it:Sistema_Chirurgico_da_Vinci. --Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't speak Italian, so I can't help you with that - but, I can tell you that if the article does not contain any copyright violations or obvious factual errors, it is not a spam. I saw that you reverted several edits on external links (which I completely agree with), but keep in mind that those edit do not testify to the spam nature of the article itself. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please restore the English article - if you like, you can propose that it be deleted (speedy is most definitely inappropriate). I guarantee that anyone who knows anything about robotics will tell you that it is notable. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I goofed.

After spending hours putting together Talk:Central Board of Secondary Education/Spam and listing domains at WikiProject Spam I screwed up and left in the spammy cbse.co.in link by mistake, not the official http://www.cbse.nic.in. I am glad this error got corrected and I am sorry for the mistake. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafielad block

Rafielad (talk · contribs), whom you blocked for spamming, has indicated in a series of unblock requests his awareness of what he did wrong and his willingness to edit other material. Do you have any objections to an unblock? Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long the advertising ceases, I have no issue with an unblock. Thanks Daniel, I support your decision. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

Mikettg (talk · contribs), Dear User Hu12, Yesterday I created a new page - George Panayotis, only to discover it was delted to day with claims of blatant advertising...Mr Panayotis is a respected figure in both the Greek and French communities, and indeed a high-profiled fuigure in the hospitality and tourism industry. He works both on radio and television, and is on the advosry board to the French Ministry of Economy, among other acclaims. I clearly referenced many of his attributes, which are all credible sources. I will not even refer you to the tens of thousands of other bio pages, which could very well be categorised in the same way, but have sustained their right to be listed on Wikipedia. Please explain what we must do to have the page re-posted. Thanking you kindly --Mikettg (talk · contribs)

From the talk pages of User:jonny-mt....

Hi Hu12,

This was posted on my talk page--I'm not exactly sure how it got there, but I think it's meant for you. --jonny-mt 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retail FX market: Data from current market survey

Hello, I hope you are well.

I added current updated information on the retail fx market. I took out old information "According to CNN, one retail broker estimates retail volume at $25–50 billion daily, which is about 2% of the whole market." and replaced it with: "May 2008 data suggests the retail market accounts for $20 trillion in annual flow to the banks, or around £80 billion a day. "

This has been removed by yourself Hu12 (though I visited your page and when I clicked on 'talk' it went to Jonny-mt's comments so I hope this is correct!!) who said it was spam, (probably because I said how many respondents there were to the survey, he probably thought I was bigging it up, but what I meant by adding this information was to communicate that it's the largest survey of its type globally, and to demonstrate how recent the data was I put in the date).

How am I meant to contest this deletion?

Thank you kindly Erica j (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to people

It is obvious from the research you are doing and the edits you are making that you are not too busy to talk to people. You are seriously upsetting an increasing number of people with your behaviour and your apparently dismissive attitude to anyone who tries to raise concerns with you. You are clearly also NOT on a Wikibreak, so please remove the misleading message at the top of this page. If you are refusing to discuss your actions, particularly your admin actions, then your behaviour is increasingly likely to be viewed as disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm currently on the road dealing with several family deaths, and have limited access to the internet. Lack of speedy responses during this time is to be expected." -Hu12. Thought it might be a good idea to post that comment here since the convo at AN/I is rather convoluted and this message could be easy to miss.
My condolences to you, Hu12. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've got a twelve hour window or so with this connection, then who knows. This is not the kind of wikibreak anyone wants. However, I'ts not suprising to see that in the past weeks I've been offline, that Wikidrama hasn't fallen from fashion. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please unplug your modem, stay away for a while, deal with the more important stuff and take care of yourself. This is just an amateur encyclopedia and it will get by for now. I'll keep an eye on your talk page. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in the room?

Add one more to the legion of users who are thinking of you during this difficult time. I'm really sorry that you were forced to reveal such a personal matter on-wiki to defend yourself at the tarring-and-feathering board and it's disappointing that so many people were unwilling to extend you some slack. The reality is that you are one of, if not the best, spam-fighters that we have right now but, honestly, there are real concerns that you are burning out badly. For your own sake, can I ask you to consider not using admin tools right now if you are at all unsure about your state of mind and perhaps consider taking a step back from the high pressure spam work and doing something more enjoyable and less stressful for a while. I'm going to pay a visit to wikiproject spam and see what I can do to help take some of the pressure off and I have asked other contributors to the discussion at ANI to spend some time helping out as well. We won't replace you but I hope that we can help a little and maybe take enough of the pressue off so that you do not feel obliged to do all the anti-spam work yourself

I really hope that, if this comes across badly, that you can at least see that this message is intended to be friendly and constructive. We can't afford to keep losing good admins from burn out and, if that means we have to honest when we are worried about it, and ask you to step back for a while, then that is what we must do. I'm really sorry to hear of your loss and I'm there for you if you need any help with a second opinion or an extra pair of hands with something. Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts, greatly appreciated. If a lack of steady internet connection is percieved as burnout, perhaps "temporarily" I'm guilty..;). Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as was the case of Web-site and Events Co-ordinator: James Franklin. --Hu12 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have convinced many people of your case over this matter, to the extent you have bothered to argue it. Do consider the possibility that you may have got this one wrong. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to External links policy's guideline for Advertising and conflicts of interest. Neutral and independent Wikipedia editors should decide whether to add it, not the Web-site and Events Co-ordinator associated with the site. Additionaly, Jamesfranklingresham (talk · contribs) is an WP:SPA role account with no other edits other than promoting Gresham College in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, several other editors (with no apparent connexion to Gresham College) have decided that the links are appropriate and have re-added them. DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is the objective. Therefore neutral and independent Wikipedia editors should decide whether to add the link, not the Web-site and Events Co-ordinator associated with the site.--Hu12 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just log-off, please, Hu12. Do yourself a favor. Tend to larger things. Take care of yourself. Let Duncan have the last word. You have friends and we'll watch for you.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK... cheers...--Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto :) --Herby talk thyme 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bit surprised that you got crucified here but no worries. We will hold down the fort as best we can while you take care of business. You're never alone in the fight against spam weasels. I would tell you that we will save some for you when you get back, but you know there will always be plenty to go around. All the best. Montco (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Duncan, other editors, that is fine. Just a thought for you, a library needs money, and many do not get that from the public that are visiting the library (or museum, or archive). Still, they need money (and webservers are not cheap). Now I know that I am assuming bad faith here, but we have to take into account that if librarians only perform link-additions, that they might be trying to show to the higher levels in their organisation that their web-server is linked to from many sources, and that they are doing a great job, and that they need a better webserver. Therefore, even for librarians it is better for them to discuss their link-additions, and not perform only link additions themselves. Moreover, if they are working in a library, then they have a whole lot of information at hand (I have to take a walk down the hall to get to my institutions library, they are working in it). They could be adding a lot of (referenced!) content to wikipedia, adding links only is the easy way out. Now blocking the editor and reverting without warning may be too much, but we have had quite some examples of notable organisations which persistently only link to their website, and refuse to co-operate. I hope that this editor will not be scared off, and will understand that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a repository of links or an internet directory. There is a thin line there, and there are some organisations who are now very productively working together with us (and some which still refuse), maybe you can help this user to become even more productive by adding unique content that they may have their hands on.
Hu12, please tend to your personal life and step away from this issue for a moment. Our thoughts are with you, and I know that there may be spam passing your filter in that time, but we will take care of that (no worry)! All the best! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, I also offer you my support. As I've commented at the AN/I, I agree pretty much with Dirk -- you have already trained us well in spam fighting. And I agree with him also, that those links should not have been added that ay and quite rightfully were seen as probably spam. Your catching them was a good thing to do-- when we see people for an organization adding links to individual lectures and the like in bursts like this over multiple subjects, it's indeed reason for suspicion. Not for rejection,necessarily, but suspicion.
But dirk, as for librarians, we do not get funded on the basis of the links we put in Wikipedia. Given that universities are not all that fond of wikipedia in the first place, that would not be a practical way of showing our value. We show our value to the people who fund us by putting the links to good sources in our own databases. And we show it to the academic world by adding the material on line in the first place, and that takes capital funding, almost always from grants. Over the long run, yes, we want to show that the public values our work and knows about it and uses it, but the key dissemination here is to make the individual library site well known and have people come through it. Ultimately, yes, we're part of web 2.0 and so is Wikipedia. But I pity the librarian who tries to put "I added links to wikipedia" in his annual report. I don't think he'd actually get fired, but in the present climate he'd certainly be asked if he couldn't find something more respectably academic to do. Even for scholarly publishers, though they do try to spam links here from time to time, its peripheral in the extreme and I've always found they stop when asked. The sort of publishers who depend on links here are another sort entirely. 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
DGG, that is not how I meant this. The efficiency of a web-department of an institution can be measured by how many people actually visit your sites (say you work there, how do you tell your boss that your site is popular, you show how many people visit the site, and then you say that you need more money for a bigger site). Those statistics do improve if you make sure your links are all around on the web, especially on a popular site as Wikipedia (where people may actually follow them). For the more visual places, like musea, that may even lead in the end to more people actually visiting your museum. As I said, it is assuming bad faith, but if an administrator of a webservice is only adding external links, especially when he has so much content available that he could actually add, then I think such editors should be cautioned. They may be, and probably are, acting in good faith, but it can give the wrong impression, and there are just too many (parts of) guidelines and policies against link-additions only are questionable (WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT ...). Also for librarians .. it is better to avoid these impressions, and discuss first with appropriate wikiprojects or suggest on talkpages. See the difference between User:Fleurstigter (who simply does not get it) and User:VAwebteam (who does very valuable work). COI does not have to be a problem, as long as it gets discussed, and the editor does not go too far. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a number of broken links, for example here [103], where you removed a working link used as a source in an article and replaced it with a broken one. Please could you explain this? DuncanHill (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, I know you're upset but can this dispute with Hu12 wait? If there's a broken link and you think it's good, just be bold and fix it. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this one. I was hoping, given that he is not on a wikibreak and is still actively editing, to alert him to the errors he has been introducing to the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan, when I look at his edit history, all I see him active with in the hour or two before you posted that is just defending himself and answering questions. Kind of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't: one moment he's in hot water for a wikibreak, the next, he's back on line defending himself and in hot water for having said he was on wikibreak. I think the answer is that he's trying to go on wikibreak. Maybe we should let him. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just when you get the time…

When you get back and you have the time, please take a look at this removal request:

It looks like a legitimate request from someone other than Mr. Kaldenberg. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution of Blacklist URL

I appreciate that you are on a wikibreak for personal reasons, so when you are able I would be grateful to have this dispute resolved. I feel it is the result of hate and censorship from individuals within China trying to attack and smear me. I am not asking for validation or inclusion of the blacklisted URL, simply to have it removed from the blacklist.

I am currently living in China, where wikipedia is routinely blocked as you know. I have to use a proxy to access wikipedia, which is a terribly painful process.

The situation is this: a couple years ago I added an external link on the "Dalian" entry to my web site (discoverdalian [dot] com). While I do offer "for pay" services, my site offers a ton of free public information and was the main source of city information before wikitravel began. It is recognized internationally as the best web site in English for information about the city of Dalian's history.

The official government city web site is a terrible Chinglish translation, and is designed mostly for foreign investment. I understand that a government asking for money is different from a company. However, my site was a valid and useful external link for a long time.

Within the expat community here in Dalian, there are many elements fighting for attention. It has become a very dirty business. When my site link and dalianxpat.com were both removed as links from the "Dalian" wikipedia entry, I took this as part of the ongoing attack.

I undid some of the deletions, and put effort into keeping the link active in defense. The action of deletion was justified as the removal of spam, but it was not explained or noted with each removal. This happened in a very short time period in early May, and I suspected it was one individual with multiple accounts. The way the matter was dealt with made me feel very confused, because my link had been spam why wikipedia had permitted it to remain for so long.

I did not engage in vandalism, and feel these claims were self-inflicted as a way to make me appear guilty of all the previous accusations. It is a classic tactic here. I am not willing to accept that my link is spam, but I am willing to concede the point of not having it as an external link.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2008#dalianxpat.com.2C_discoverdalian.com

If you read the entry about the spam black list, you will note that no warning or explanation was given. A user complained, offered little proof in support, and my URL was blacklisted. Not even my user account was banned, just the URL. I was never contacted by an admin, given the chance to explain my side, or simply warned so I would have the chance to surrender.

I am willing to accept the attack of individuals here in Dalian who want to control all information about the city (which is to cover-up its colonial history). However, I will not accept the indignity of having my URL blacklisted on wikipedia. My company has enough media citations to justify its own wikipedia entry. Instead of being so bold and clamoring for attention with my own entry, I was content with a simple external link.

If I ever do decide to submit a full entry, I would like the blacklist issue resolved now. Then if that entry is attacked I can defend it on its own merits, and support of wikipedia guidelines.

There is obvious evidence of warring over the "Dalian" external links. However, being blacklisted without warning is inappropriate and unfair. The issue was contained only to the link, and the heavy handed way it was deleted within a few week period leaves me a bit shocked. It is enough to make anyone defensive.

After "Hu12" explained the external link situation, I let the matter drop and did not try to re-add mine or any other links. So I was very surprised and hurt that a few weeks later the URL was blacklisted. It was like I was kicked and gave in, so then why push the matter further? I think this is evidence enough of another individual trying to intimidate and make me appear a complete villain.

If my reactions at any time along the way were inappropriate, then I sincerely apologize. I understand that being an admin is a tough job and I hope that this decision can be reconsidered. I am routinely censored by the Chinese government, so perhaps I do take it personal when people living in a free and open society try to block me even when I try to make amends.

You will note in the "Beijing" entry - a city somewhat bigger than Dalian - there is an external link to a tour company. Their page has nothing but prices, not even basic helpful tour information. By the standards my link was judged against, this link should be considered spam and deleted. When I pointed this out (July 1st), the link was promptly removed by an Admin. I understand this action, however, these URLs were not blacklisted. Therefore, I once again request resolution of the matter I have presented here.

Again I request to simply have the discoverdalian [dot] com URL removed from the spam-black list (along with dalianxpat.com).

Kazkura (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scamdex

Hi Hu12,

I just got a message from this user on my talk page about a note you left on their talk page about a month ago. I'll leave them for you to handle, but I'm mildly curious as to how they got to my page--I seem to recall this happening before, too. Weird.... --jonny-mt 15:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are missed

My regards and highest thoughts. Flowanda | Talk 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Microcredit Summit Campaign

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Microcredit Summit Campaign. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 17:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklisting

It is proposed that this page be moved into the Wikipedia namespace as it seems to be outwith the usual contents of the MediaWiki namespace. You can discuss the requested move at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklisting. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sending good thoughts your way...

And wishing you were back on the team. Montco (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webiste

Can you analyze if this webiste should be blocked or not. Please.

It has arrived here because I put in lot's of wikipedias, and ishouldn't do it. But I only want to undo my error, so you could see the page Park Güell and the website: http://parkguell.net84.net/eng/

The bot page is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/parkguell.net84.net#Discussion

Bye--RobCatalà (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first spammer to attempt to keep asking admins the same question until you get the answer you want. Please stop canvassing or you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Hu12 don't answer. (I won't delete it, but as I've done it)--RobCatalà (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Thanks for the block on User:SecondMarket, Inc. - I had already reverted a few of those links popping up and was going to have to look for some assistance if there was recurrence. The company itself has been increasing its profile recently and was profiled in some trade publications around trading CDOs but the recent postings are just blatant spam.

Separately, although we had our run ins in the past, I was glad to see you back on after a long hiatus. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge. Keep up the fine work ;). --Hu12 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. Hope we can find something to work on as you ease back in. Regards |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back

Have a good new year. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You as well! cheers--Hu12 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

Good to see you, Welcome Back! :) --Versageek 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - welcome back Hu12! I was shocked to see you beat me to a spam revert. :) Kuru talk 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Missed you all for sure! Although I still have my hands full, I will check in when its possible. If at times I can't respond, its good to know others are keeping an eye on my talk page ;). Happy New Year. Cheers --Hu12 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also very glad to see you again. I was beginning to think all my old friends had faded away... — Satori Son 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, welcome back to the fray! I hope you are still open to spam questions and giving general advice.. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thank you for backing me up here. Themfromspace (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation on http use

A conversation has been started about the use of http links on the WT:WPSPAM page. As a frequent editor of that page, your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http use on this page would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - LuckyLove8

Hi Hu. I put up a brief response to your recent edits. I won't revert them. I want you to reconsider in light of my arguments and consider reverting them yourself.

[LuckyLove8 user talk page]

thanks LuckyLove8 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Exclaim! is a wholly valid and reliable source for music articles, not a violation of WP:SPAM or WP:EL. It's one of the two Canadian music magazines, the other being Chart, that are absolutely core sources of equivalent validity to Rolling Stone or Spin. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#exclaim.ca. Agents of this publication have proliferated an extensive spam campaign. This violates multiple policies. Only the editors in violation have been removied, good faith additions still remain, and won't be removed. Here are the rules;
--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sbl log format

Hi!
Pleas use this format for the sbl log, tia. -- seth (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of HDRO-UNDP

Hello Hu12. HDRO-UNDP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this user could be unblocked contingent on a username change and a commitment to WP:COI-compliant editing.  Sandstein  19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assesment/comment. I still have concerns...
However, providing past COI contributions are not repeated, a second chance should be given. Thanks for the note, Sandstein. --Hu12 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

journal group

Hu, please see my note at User talk:Akradecki. I'm removing the spam parts & upgrading as i go, title by title, it'll take me a few days to finish, but they are quite respectable titles & I'll take responsible for keeping their PR guy honest. DGG (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that instead of giving me that courtesy, you nominated it for deletion just a few hours later, and didn't even notify you. I would not treat you--or anyone else at Wikipedia--that way. I respect your work, and I expect or at least hope that you will respect mine. DGG (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps we should have a conversation? email?DGG (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Afd was already mentioned on the other talk page, prior to your posting here and prior to me nominating them. If a few of those mktng articles get deleted its less work all around. If we choose to focus on our percieved differences, despite the many good things (I believe) we have in common, discussion won't help. If you feel besmirched because of the nominations, I apoligise. As I've said in the past, I do respect you, Perhaps I should have been more thoughtfull in this instance. --Hu12 (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associated content.com - thanks

Thanks for your explanation here, and sorry for wasting your time. -kotra (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a waste at all. Keep up the good work! Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your (old) block of User:Lyriker

16:24, 23 January 2008 Hu12 blocked Lyriker (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite: Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address)

Lyriker was accused of linkspam. Whether or not what Lyriker did was linkspam, pointing to pages on lyrikline.org (I have serious doubts about that, and evidence of linkspamming included the links added to de.wiki which have been judged to be acceptable), the block based on the user name was a total error. "Lyriker" simply means, in German, "poet." "Lyrik" means "poetry." Basically, an easy AGF construction of what happened was that a user who is interested in poetry (as can be seen by contributions on de of this same user, who has the user name Lyrik there) finds that there is a poetry site which contains permitted copies and audio contributed by poets, so this user starts adding the links, believing them to be useful. There is no "domain" or "web address" implied in the user name, you could not find lyrikline.org simply by knowing the user name Lyriker. Please unblock; failing that, please permit another admin to unblock, should I find one willing to do it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your (old) deletion of lyrikline.org

I see that you deleted lyrikline.org as "blatant advertising." There is no clear evidence that User:Lyriker who may have created the article (I can't tell because it was deleted) was affiliated with the website lyrikline.org. Lyriker.org has an article on de that was indeed created by this user (as Lyrik on de): that article stands (and lyriker.org has been whitelisted on de, which is the only wiki, to my knowledge, that has deliberated the matter outside of blacklist admins and anti-linkspam warriors). If the article itself was inappropriately written, I request that you userfy it to my user space so that I may review it before moving it to article space. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


First, the dropdown reasons in the "Block log" summary have since been improved to include better rationale for Spam-only and promotional accounts such as User:Lyriker. If your unfamiliar, AGF does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence[104]. See :
Secondly, The argument you've stated for unblocking is not valid, where apropriate action was taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. Ie.
Finaly, If you wish to create a useful article about lyrikline.org That meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, feel free to do so. thanks for your time--Hu12 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor was a de user, Lyrik. Editor showed similar interests on de, i.e., in Poetry. There is no evidence that Lyriker was "promoting" anything, but, on the face, was simply adding links that the user thought appropriate and relevant, and, in fact, the links on de have all been found to be appropriate. They are not here because the site is meta blacklisted, still, and a whitelisting request from a legitimate editor was just denied (for no clear reason other than "not needed"). Essentially, the user triggered what WP:SPAM calls the "antispam radar," but didn't actually spam, as the word would be ordinarily understood. The addition of multiple links looks like spam, but may not be, if all the links added are appropriate or at least reasonable.
De editors came to meta and requested delisting of lyrikline.org, the allegedly spammed site, but this was denied, evidence the same as you cited: a single user who did add a lot of links, cross-wiki, but who actually stopped when warned. De, faced with refusal to delist at meta, has whitelisted the site and hasn't been inundated with linkspam. The editor, not blocked on de, even while unable to add links due to the meta blacklisting, removed links, apparently believing that he or she had done something wrong by adding them. Yes, I'll create the article. Are you willing to userfy it to my user space, so I can see what was done? I could also try to translate the article from de. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/lyrikline.org. --Abd (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There being no response to my request, I asked Sarcasticidealist to userfy it for me, which he kindly did. Thanks for your attention. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrikline.org has now been cleaned up a bit, referenced, and moved to article space. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've whitelisted and have added[105] this specific link, http://www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=51&L=1 , for use on en:Lyrikline.org only. The the general blacklisting of the sites link has not be lifted, however variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable.--Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very helpful. I was thinking of asking for that exact whitelisting, so your response to my request took a negative amount of time. That's what I call fast! --Abd (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a warning?

Hu12, this seemed a tad threatening. Was it intended that way? In that discussion, I responded to points made by other editors that sometimes reflected an incorrect understanding of the relevant history. There are, in addition, possible disagreements on undocumented blacklist procedures, which go beyond guidelines, which are becoming clear from the discussions, and which have been previously rather arcane to many editors and administrators, and which were being discussed on various Talk pages, and which now are under discussion by some at User talk:Abd/Blacklist, a page I set up to work on documenting how the blacklist procedures may not be working, with recognition that it is usually working. I'm finding it all enlightening. You are welcome to join that discussion, if you have time and inclination, but, please, no threats. --Abd (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12's selected quote: "..continuing that stance..may interperated as a disruptive pattern..if let to continue." seems to deny Wikipedia's receptivity to new contribution, as expressed formally by "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't particularly friendly, but if I were to continue debating a point beyond a decision (and without extenuating circumstances, such as new arguments or additional, possibly misleading evidence being presented by other editors), it would indeed be disruptive. However, that doesn't mean that I can't continue to challenge a decision, just not in that place or in a forum at, effectively, the same level. If I disagree (as I certainly do), I can take it up individually with a deciding administrator, and if there is no satisfaction there, can go up the ladder of WP:DR, which I almost certainly will, given the arguments being presented. See User:Abd/Blacklist and Talk there, plus with regard to lyrikline.org, see User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org for a history of the lyrikline blacklisting and of the user whose substantial cross-wiki linking of the site led to the blacklisting. Nevertheless, if I thought there was an important point to make, to be kept with that discussion or close to it, I'd follow the instructions in the closing notice. I have, on occasion. I might use a new subsection, outside of the closing notice; but the blacklist pages are operating pages, not really designed for debate. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a tad quick for an article that had been around for years. Please undelete and PROD or AfD if you so wish. I found one source, fairly quickly, there may be more. Or not. I just think that the article should have a chance. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was requested by another editor, contents was indeed quite promotional (and has been like that for a long time). Guess it was a case of missed promotional language. There may be some very old revisions that might be salvageable, though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. My point. It's also possible, and easy, to stub the article. However, if Hu12 isn't amenable to undeletion, don't know if he has seen this yet, then I request that the article be restored (with revisions and Talk, if there is any) and userfied to my user space. If the restoring admin is concerned about promotion, though there should be no rush, given how long it sat there, then blanking the page should address that, and I, and others, can see the history and fix the article before moving it back -- or leaving it deleted, depending on what is found, both from history and from new searches for sources. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, maybe some of us are not amendable to undeletion (which I know is not true). I really would like you to have a good read through WP:AGF. The speedy deletion request was by another editor, also they could have had a look first. Mistakes are made, but you first cry wolf, without knowing a history (here you can't know the history as it is deleted, but that is not a reason to first accuse!). Wikipedia is not a promotion vehicle, and if an article is too promotional, deletion is a good option. Please stop your witchhunt, you could also have gone to WP:DR with this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, I'm astonished! You'd prefer that I go to WP:DRV over a speedy deletion without first discussing it with the deleting admin? Sure, I can go there, but I'd thought we are supposed to start small with direct requests to acting admins. Have I missed something? I've already responded to you on your Talk page, but I'd really not noticed how bizarre this comment was. Anyway, I think I'm done here, I've requested userification from another admin and will proceed accordingly. I simply comment below that Ready-links.com wasn't deliberately blacklisted, and as you stated elsewhere, the regex expression was simply an error. Since Hu12 is the one who added that expression to the blacklist, I thought it appropriate to mention it to him. He's not obligated to do anything. --Abd (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, I'm amendable to undeletion and userfying pages in situations where it does not involve wholsale mischaracterizing of facts and meritless fishing expeditions. My talk page is not a platform for you to exploit in order to "push an agenda".--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, the only "agenda" I'm "pushing" is the improvement of the project. Beetstra, I don't see any violation of AGF above. Could you point it out, specifically? To question an administrative decision doesn't violate AGF, AGF doesn't mean "Assume Good Decisions." I have the right to question a decision; I don't do that unless I have some suspicion that an error might have been made. Not a conclusion, necessarily. However, I've seen the google cache for the article. As you stated above, Beetstra, there might have been salvageable content there. If that was the case, speedy deletion was inappropriate. The editor complaining could also have taken out everything objectionable, quickly, stubbing it, perhaps. If the stub becomes too short, then the article could be AfD'd, and if no sources could be found, that would be quick.
No claim has been made here that Hu12 made the wrong decision; I've merely presented some counterarguments. We can resolve this quickly, or we can go through further process. I can get the article userfied, I presume, if I haven't already done that. And then some work can be done on it and it could be moved back to article space. I would ask Hu12, as the deleting administrator, for permission before doing that, and he can decide at that time. If he accepts, we are done. If he refuses, then there is WP:DR (assuming I still disagree.) DR works. Now, Hu12, any time you want to ban me from your user page, you may certainly do so, by notice on my Talk page. I'll honor it, but, it does mean that the first stages of WP:DR would then be skipped. Your choice, I have no problem with either way, though I prefer the simplicity of direct negotiation. Thanks. And your prior help on other issues is not forgotten. --Abd (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no conclusion, however, as yet, as to whether or not the article would or should survive formal deletion process. I'm not about to waste everyone's time if I expect it would be deleted. Are we done for the moment? I read the above as a denial of userification, so I'll inform any admin I ask for a copy of this denial, so that they are aware of your objection. Correct? --Abd (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed something else about this Readylinks affair. Ready-links.com was blacklisted because links.com was blacklisted, see [MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#links.com_regex_biting_nonspammed_ready-links.com_and_broken-links.com]. You added that link to the blacklist with [106]. The reported domain wasn't links.com, it was a subdomain, links.links.com. Looks like links.com deleted that subdomain, links.com is like a wiki and it looks like a spammer grabbed a subdomain. Did you intend to blacklist links.com instead of the actual spammed domain, links.links.com? As you should know from the above, \blinks\.com\b catches Ready-links.com as well as the links.com, likewise broken-links.com which was recently whitelisted to get around this. Would you consider removing the blacklisting of links.com (it really isn't needed any more), or edit the regex to touch links.links.com instead of links.com? --Abd (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RRE Ventures

Hu12 -

I noticed you flagged the RRE Ventures article as having significant contributions from User:jdriv and have implied based on the initials that this is the senior partner of the firm with corresponding initials. My read is that given anyone can choose any user name he or she wants, unless a user "outs" himself you should not be identifying him in that way. It could just as easily be the most junior member of the firm or a secretary as it is the senior partner. Additionally, I have gone into the article itself and cleaned up some of the objectionable content anyway so other than embarassing the user / person in question, I am not sure what purpose is served with your tag. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Jdriv&diff=prev&oldid=270345616 . He identifies himself as the co-Founder & Managing Partner of RRE Ventures, an article in which he created about his company. It also Appears he has Added himself and edited his fathers article James D. Robinson III--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of discussion on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

You removed a comment of mine from a closed discussion on the spam-blacklist talk page, with this edit summary: (rmv urelated see WP:CANVASS). I reverted.

Unnecessary removal of discussion, even if only marginally related, is disruptive. Removing discussion from a closed topic invites further discussion, with no purpose. Your citation of WP:CANVASS is odd. Applying that guideline to a request for advice and comment from editors involved in or interested in the blacklisting process is a radical misunderstanding of what canvassing is. My comment there was neutral and not uncivil or disruptive. The pages pointed to are not pages where any decision will be made other than my own. Please do not engage in useless conflict with no value to the project. --Abd (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Canvassing is uacceptable. Its fairly obvious what you are attempting to do. Whether its Campaigning users on the blacklist (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking - an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ...) or soliciting users directly, as did with Kazkura (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning - Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent.) Wikipedia is not a chat forum, nor are talk pages to be used by you as a platform for your personal views or to exploit in order to "push your agenda".--Hu12 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That user page isn't a formal Wikipedia process, it advises me in my generation of a report, which would then perhaps become the basis of further process, such as an RfC. At that point canvassing would apply. If what I wrote was canvassing or inappropriate, then surely someone else would have supported your position by removing it. Instead, you edit warred, insisting on your position with a repetitive revert. I'm certainly not going to revert you. This whole thing wasn't about you, but you just might be forcing it to become that, which is unfortunate. I'd suggest taking a deep breath, asking some trusted friends to get a second opinion. Choose well. --Abd (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I report filed regarding your removal of comment from closed discussion.

Repetitive removal of discussion by Hu12 on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I apologize for the distraction, but wonder why that comment was so bloody important to remove. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing again? I'll be offline for a short time. Feel free to put your comment back. Just because you may edit that page, it is still a page in the MediaWiki namespace and ment for administration of the Wikipedia project, which is not intended as a platform to exploit in order to "push an agenda". Perhaps next time have the wherewithal to place comments unrelated to specific cases in the apropriate discussion area provided. --Hu12 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When someone puts a comment on the ANI we require them to inform the person they are discussing on their talk page as a matter of courtesy. To do so is not harassment or wikihounding, it's standard procedure.Theresa Knott | token threats 09:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Protection

I see this page has been semied since may last year. I assume that this is an oversight as admins really need thier talk page to be editable. So I have taken the liberty of unprotecting it. I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye out for abuse. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion to "cover letter"

Hi Hu12, and Greetings!

Just a question why my addition to the entry "Cover letter" from today was deleted (link: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Cover_letter&diff=prev&oldid=271897719)

Cheers!--Kutnpaste (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a Link normally to be avoided which would additionaly fail Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lashtal.com

There seems to have been a disjointed discussion going on this one. I saw that you blacklisted the site at Wikipedia:SBL#lashtal.com; but I also saw that Jpgordon posted at Talk:Aleister Crowley#Aleister Crowley Society Link that he viewed the site as "a valuable repository of information not otherwise available".

I just wanted to point this out, so you were aware. Personally, I see abuse of the site and could agree with the blacklisting for that reason; but I can also see value of some links in some articles - so I think whitelisting a handful of specific links for some articles would also be appropriate (pending the community identifying the appropriate links). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am not opposed to whitelisting the appropriate links whatsoever. Once the community decides which are the appropriate links, I'll speedily whitelist them. thaks Barrek--Hu12 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12/Archive6&oldid=1259774597"