Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! -- Acalamari 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you needn't worry of spamming my talk page. That's quite alright, really. I am certain you will make a fine admin. Maser ( Talk!) 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer the AN thread. When you get a chance, can you add this to meta and remove it from en.blacklist? Thanks!-- Isotope23 talk 15:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
While all votes are appreciated that is twice you've voted for Johnny :) I'll let you fix it? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, looks like we both had the same idea. Sorry about that! If you want/need to tinker with the settings, feel free, I'm heading offline for a bit in the near future. – Luna Santin ( talk) 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Herbythyme, I noticed you archived the proposed blacklisting of blogspot.com addresses. Was the whole domain actually blacklisted? Spellcast ( talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly as directed, I placed links that are being used for spamming here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Linkspam_from_vandal_Wayne_Smith_AKA_Universe_Daily
The only response was to "monitor" it. Why? How much vandalism is he allowed? Look at this nonsense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Robert_G._Barrett&diff=next&oldid=172863431
Smith's Long Term Abuse page instructions are very clear -> block and revert on sight. Maybe you can help. Yale s ( talk) 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. And congrats on your RfA as well. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 02:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful
RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
If you hate thankspam, please forgive me, and do not worry that you will hurt my feelings by hitting delete. I promise I won't block you. Unless I mess up with those shiny new buttons. Mistakes do happen... (*cackle cackle*)
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
Dear Herbythyme,
Thank you for participating in
my recent RfA, which closed successfully with 22 supports, 1 oppose, and 2 neutrals. Whether you supported, opposed, stayed neutral or simply commented or asked a question, I would like to thank you for your time and for your comments. Special thanks must go to
User:Lar and
User:John, who not only conommed, but also devoted a large proportion of their time coaching me. I am sure that what I have learnt during the coaching process can be put to good use as an admin. As an admin, I will be willing to help out with anything I can so please do not hesitate to contact me if there is anything I could help out with. I will also do my best to address any concerns raised during the RfA.
Thanks.
Tbo 157
(talk)
16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This RFA thanks was inspired by User:Iridescent's and User:The Random Editor's RFA thanks which were both inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.
Thanks for adding this to the whitelist. I just tried it out at Jonas Brothers and it works. -- Scott Alter 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Herbythyme,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. |
Thanks for dealing with the vandal. I appreciate it. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks you, I didn't think about the log -- that was my first addition :) I'll make sure to use it in the future, thanks again -- SQL Query me! 08:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking of me. It was very kind of you, and I hope you have a lovely day. Maralia 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Herby, I've replied to your message on my talk page - I didn't intend to be so late... sorry. -- Iamunknown 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Dumb question whats the \b at the end (\bexample\.com\b)of the BL'd domain do? LOL-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. All better. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I Started a topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_spammer, and it appears the meta BL is proposed. Could you have a look. thanks-- Hu12 ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am happy if it is blocked if it is a spam site. I haven't checked to see if it was given that the news events it was used as a link for was real. What I want to do is to be able to update the Current Affairs page? Capitalistroadster ( talk) 08:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please make andrhanews.net active on the spam blacklist now? All of the links have been removed now. — Save_Us_ 229 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blacklisting the domains, see Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Spam#skin-disease-pictures.blogspot.com. But I forgot one domain and I thought maybe you haven't noticed my update on the WPSPAM page. So, could you blacklist wartpictures.blogspot.com, because he's still adding the link 2-3 times per day to Genital wart, each time from a different IP. Han-Kwang ( t) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was strange to see that after blocking a user, you then reverted the note on that IP's talk page explaining how crazy the block was. If you have anything to suggest that the IP in question is actually a proxy or zombie other than the fact that one of the two edits ever done by that IP address was mildly critical of wikipeida, I'd like to know what it is. I'm not assuming bad faith, but could you please explain these actions? 155.42.99.201 ( talk) 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PanchoHardy I hate having to keep bringing this up but it seems nobody bothered at all with both my request, and your re-request and he had since uploaded more blatantly copyvio images. This is taken from the internet and was taken in the eighties, inside a ring, inside a ring, television screenshot. To top it all off at the same time as he's uploaded thiese images he's had the gall to nominate some other images for deletion as copyright violations showing he is aware of what copyright is. [1] [2] [3]
This user knows what copyright is, and yet every upload of his that isn't a transwiki is a copyright violation that he has taken from someone else. This really needs to be taken care of. –– Lid( Talk) 14:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Herby,
Thanks for your help, much appreciated - Re: your comment on 'Alan Miles not being a major part of the Levellers because you have been to quite a few of their gigs over the years' --> Alan Miles' co-writing of their first Gold selling LP and performing on the recording, being a part of the era when they were creating the seminal sound that they have stuck to ever since, as well as co-writing the 'Liberty Song' on their second Platinum LP is certainly considered quite major to me and a vast oversight on your part I believe.
I do, however, agree with your comment on 'conflict of interest', I can see why this is crucial to the Wiki system
Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonviper ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Herby, thanks for your counsel. It was my first time adding to the blacklist. I wasn't really aware of the option, so I had solicited opinions in the admin IRC channel for how to deal with the situation (dynamic IP re-adding spam link, but other IPs making good edits) when one admin suggested this option and told me how to do it, upon viewing the article history. I can certainly solicit outside opinions on-wiki as well in the interest of transparency before adding a link to the list in the future. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your support in my RfA! I couldn't have and probably wouldn't have without your encouragement.
Now I have my first questions; I struggle to understand copyright and I know you know a lot about this from your Commons work.
Here's a photo from Commons of a Japanese stuffed animal: Image:Domokun.jpg; Domo-kun is the mascot for a Japanese TV station. According to the image description file, this image is free content and the image's creator has made it freely available per the terms of a free license. Here's my question: I'm guessing the underlying mascot is proprietary to the TV station -- so does that mean it's really fair use in this case?
Here's another one: Image:Godzilla (04).jpg: Godzilla, probably very proprietary/tradmarked/copyrighted/whatever, as a sculpture on a Japanese street. My thinking is that whatever claim the Godzilla movie owners held on this image, they licensed to the sculptor and the sculpture owner. But is its use in Wikipedia limited to fair use in a discussion of just that statue (and perhaps its surroundings and the sculptor)? Do we have an obligation to the movie studio here? What about the sculptor and/or sculpture owner? Then there's this deletion discussion that I don't really understand: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Godzilla hibiya japan 2006 9.jpg
I was going to leave this tasteless RfA thank you note (click on its corner link to open it) but the last thing I need to do is spam fair use images across 86 user talk pages.
Thanks again for the big stuff and now this little question. -- A. B. (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
So far, so good. No copyright vios with this one.
And thanks so much, as always. -- A. B. (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish I knew more about open proxies to deal with this. If you know it is one, by all means feel free to tweak the block. Spellcast ( talk) 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For a very special lesson you've given to me, which made my way at Wikipedia much easier —-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)) |
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I and others first developed this category over a year ago, we visualized it as a low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would trust, in fact a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for the community and bad for the admin. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process. I have in my User:Lar/Accountability page, given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. it is not needed to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want, rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived change. Further I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. Put it in this table: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and are entirely up to you. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should happen to be recalled. Thanks for your time and consideration and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek |
++ Lar: t/ c 00:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I do understand that. I'm trying to be civil.
I'm an admin myself, but I'd prefer not to remove the site because I'm honestly not familiar with this area of the project. Before this happened, I didn't even know we had such a list. It seems that a handful of users maintain it almost exclusively, and I didn't want to step on any toes. Would it be unwise for me to remove the link myself? Do people ever run an RfC on this issue? It seems like a waste to me, but I'm very frustrated with how this is going. Cool Hand Luke 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the request now. Waggers ( talk) 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Herby, I have added some arguments about the Pygmalion Books situation to their spam section. Out of all the other moderators involved, I have only seen you admit that there may have actually been some substantial non-spam in the information I added. While I'm willing to admit that I may have gone overboard with some articles, I believe your hunch here to be the case. I can go into further detail on the specific articles that I think merits their contribution if you'd like. 205.200.244.98 ( talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hu12, I had already added the link to the spam page in my message above. I'm not sure what the purpose is in posting redundant information here? 205.200.244.98 ( talk) 05:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the archive search working for you? Last few days its not been returning accurate results. -- Hu12 ( talk) 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Herbythyme! I use an automated tool (i.e. no human intervention) that runs 24/7 to detect whenever an XRumer spambot creates new pages. Whenever it finds such a page, it will delete it and block the IP that created it, as XRumer operates only either from botnets (in which case they should be blocked) or the spammer's computer (which should probably be blocked too). I know DerHexer handles XRumer a lot on the smaller wikis, maybe you should get in touch with him? Just get back to me on my talk page if you need my tool or anything else. All the best, east.718 at 21:00, December 27, 2007
re: [4] Appears a new attempt by easy-forex.com, to subvert the blacklist by using freewebs. see freewebs.com/tradeforeignexchange. Any chance this can be added to the global also?.. Ive already added this to the archive on meta, so logging the link above is already done. thanks-- Hu12 ( talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Re your message: Thanks for alerting me about that. I don't use my Meta account very often. He was a particularly persistent vandal. I see you blocked him over there. He ended up with a range block over here. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Herby,
For a final version of the message I've sent to many admins (I am up to the "F"s) see User:Lar/catmsg. You may want to review it. links changed (I changed your archive just now in fact) Note alsos... 1) since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table to validate that it was you that added it. 2) Since you're, I think, using my criteria/process, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with H only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, -- El on ka 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support | ||
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
I hope you remember about a site which i asked you block it. A website called empiretotalwar.co.uk. Well that guy is spamming his site again. [5]is there anything you can do to block him and his sites. He seems to having a dynamic ip and plus he is redirecting the traffic to that site. I know this going to be hard. Is there anything you can do about it?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 07:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think at some point this guy is going to have to stop for his own good. Our standard operating procedure is to tag every IP page with information on his domains, registration etc. We do this strictly for our own tracking purposes, but since Wikipedia has such high page-ranking power with Google, the more IP's he uses, the higher our internal spam-tracking pages rise on the results page when someone Googles his company. It's a perverse form of reverse-SEO I've seen some others commit on themselves. It's too bad, but there's not much we can do for this guy -- it's a byproduct of his own behaviour. -- A. B. (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast, thanks for the link to the local BL, didn't realize it was centralized to wiki's as well, I was quick like cobra removing them, but you were spry as a mongoose with that reply... :P Dureo ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Updated comment at [User_talk:Neparis#electrojets.com]. Did I list this correctly? Thanks for the help/comments. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"Too long" is not a valid reason if it's a spam-link. The blatant hoax Brahmanical See existed for nearly 3½ years before it was deleted. (See User:Shii/Hoaxes)
It's clear the original uploader was link-farming when you look at their contribs. Also, I don't know how to use any anti-spam bots. If you do, would you know of any way to track how many times it's been added and removed, or if any other anonymous IPs have add the same link to Wikipedia before? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is just my opinion. To me the blacklist is not a form of censorship but a method of preventing current disruption. If you disagree then the blacklist page is the place to air your views - others may agree. Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That does not appear to answer my questions. I do not know how to use anti-spam tools. Is it possible to look into the edit history surrounding that link to find if it has been added, removed, and re-added several times? It was originally added as linkfarming. If it was removed, then re-added multiple times, this would be "disruption," and removing it would not be "censorship." ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad it is gone. I am not against people profiting from Wikipedia, but referral links are a sneaky way of abusing users' trust on us. And while Amazon are very hard to catch, Play-Asia are easy. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back. I got busy and then just kind of forgot to check in. I seem to have managed to fall back into my old ways pretty quickly though. This could be bad for my real life! -- SiobhanHansa 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your message. There isn't a lot to say really. Some years ago I read The Moving Toyshop and found it boring and confusing. Last December I found two more Crispin novels in a second-hand book shop and read them. As far as I'm concerned, they are much better, especially Love Lies Bleeding. As there hadn't been any articles on those other novels, I started them. I'm still working on an expansion of The Case of the Gilded Fly—I'd like to give a plot summary (without giving away the solution) and explain some of the literary allusions in the text.
Generally, I set out about ten years ago to read up on all those Golden Age detective novels I had missed, and now I'm trying to see to it that each author is represented in Wikipedia with at least one article on an individual novel. This doesn't only include the cosy whodunnit variety. Over the years I've contributed articles on novels by Gilbert Adair, Eric Ambler, Anthony Berkeley, Freeman Wills Crofts, Carl Hiaasen, Jonathan Latimer, Raymond Postgate, and some more.
Some authors such as Elizabeth Daly or Elizabeth Ferrars do not even have their own articles yet, so basically my interest in Crispin will be fleeting as I'm likely to move on to other authors. Do you have any particular reason?
Best wishes, <K F> 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand the External Links policy along with the Conflict of Interest policy as well. I truly believe the links at Imag091307 and Backdoor.Win32.IRCBot are genuine links that contribute to the quality of the article as stated
Under the External Links policy
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
I also feel that a lot of Wikipedian readers have benefited from that link. HOWEVER I will not revert the edit if you still feel that you are correct. I am just showing my side of the story and hope you see where I am coming from.
Sincerely, augrunt ( talk) 05:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How are you doing. :). Can you tell me which is the fastest way to submit more than 8 articles for deletion?. I know the current way. But it quite tiresome when there is lot of articles for deletion. Any help?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this-- Hu12 ( talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Herby, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats. |
Thank you very much! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 09:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi from Watchet in West Somerset. As a local resident I try to add items to the "watchet" page of local interest, but today you have again accused me of spamming or advertising. I do NOT do this. The two links added are/were valuable information about the town of Watchet and ongoing redevelopment. How can they be spam? The other site is the town's own information site. There is no interest in search engine links - JUST to provide all visitors with information that will be useful. Please be kind enough to explain why you sent such a rude message. Or contact me direct on .
MR Richards
Hi from Watchet in West Somerset. As a local resident I try to add items to the "watchet" page of local interest, but today you have again accused me of spamming or advertising. I do NOT do this. The two links added are/were valuable information about the town of Watchet and ongoing redevelopment. How can they be spam? The other site is the town's own information site. There is no interest in search engine links - JUST to provide all visitors with information that will be useful. Please be kind enough to explain why you sent such a rude message.
MR Richards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.154.134 ( talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have suggested [6] that the account Gavin Collins be moved to GrawpSock and then I can create a new account in my name. Does that make sense? -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Title says it all, Herby. I'll have to work extra hard now to ensure that I deserve it! — SMALL JIM 11:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. This is the only way I can reach you as your block on Wikimedia commons prevents me from leaving a message on your talk page. I am trying to recover my password on Wikimedia commons but your IP address block is preventing me from doing so. Please can you lift it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Stalker IP range pending consensus. You may contact Herbythyme or one of the other administrators to discuss the block." So I try to contact Herbtythyme or one of the other administrators and get exactly the same message. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
she-j radio? It is not a commercial radio, it is a website where people can listen to minimal techno tracks released under a creative commons license. There is absolutely NO advertising on the site, nor we promote anything. I don't understand why a link to "minimal techno podcast" is accepted, but you don't accept a non-profit site dedicated to this kind of music. I think it is a good resource for people to get to know free music of this genre. I am against any kind of spamming and advertising, I really think it is an appropriate link here. Why has it been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amber sunshower ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that it could have been useful to give an example of this kind of music. But, you're right, the world can go on even without those links. And even without many other information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amber sunshower ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, although someone appears not to have understood the sentence "If you were not personally involved in the deletion of the image, please do not take the following comments personally." ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ABF#Removal_of_image_from_.22Permian.E2.80.93Triassic_extinction_event.22)
What do you suggest would be an effective way to "have a go at the system"? The current system for managing images needs to be critiqued because it is at present a collection of obstacles and hidden traps, as shown by the deleted image. Wikipedia is trying to get and retain knowledgeable editors, and IMO user-unfriendly features are about as big a deterrent as as vandals, flamers and POV-pushers but it's less easy to see how to deal with user-unfriendly features.
PS the fact that at present only admins have universal log-ins is itself a user-unfriendly feature, since en.wikipedia editors get messages and other "inputs" from people with universal accounts and find it difficult to respond. (I've had a such a message on my Talk page; once I found that my en.wikipedia id was not valid for responding to it, I simply dropped the matter except for watching that no undesirable action was taken). Philcha ( talk) 10:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The In Universe tag is for fictional works. Mokele-mbembe is not a work of fiction even though many/most don't think it exists. This is not an appropriate tag and there are two others there. Niet Comrade ( talk) 15:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Herbie. I've addressed those two points at length on the RfB page, so I do not wish to clutter it up with unnecessary repetition. Re: time, please see case precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3 which had this exact issue. Re: desire, yes, I do want to be a bureaucrat because I do think I would be an asset to the project as such. There is no other reason why I would subject myself to the intense dissection of near every one of my wiki actions (for example, an oppose based on a post over 20 months old) for kicks . One has to want to serve in this role in order to do a good job. Your concern should be do I want it for ego, or do I want it to help. I think my history shows the latter, but if you truly think its the former, then you were right in opposing. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Herby.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi ( talk) 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that quickly. Here's the meta blacklist proposal; declined because I didn't provide evidence that it was on multiple wikis (though I do know that the link exists on the .zh version). They've been quite persistent about trying to add that link (even resorting to using redirect domains to sneak it in). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Herby,
I notice I have been flagged for adding inappropriate links to various driving pages of Wikipedia. I'm hoping you might reconsider this flag as I really feel the content on drivingfast.net is relevant and informative for the driving pages. It isn't a commercially driven site, and I feel it's one of the best independent sources of information on driving techniques. The average visitor I get from Wikipedia remains on the site for over six minutes which must say something on the relevance of the content and I feel the flash animations are more informative than static images can be. Really appreciate if you could take the time to reconsider the decision.
Many thanks
Jonnogibbo ( talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed my talk page was for my purposes only - I have taken on board the message so decided to remove it but will leave it now. I don't intend on adding more links, but think it's a shame to remove relvent content. Have you had a look at the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnogibbo ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! -- Acalamari 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you needn't worry of spamming my talk page. That's quite alright, really. I am certain you will make a fine admin. Maser ( Talk!) 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer the AN thread. When you get a chance, can you add this to meta and remove it from en.blacklist? Thanks!-- Isotope23 talk 15:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
While all votes are appreciated that is twice you've voted for Johnny :) I'll let you fix it? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, looks like we both had the same idea. Sorry about that! If you want/need to tinker with the settings, feel free, I'm heading offline for a bit in the near future. – Luna Santin ( talk) 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Herbythyme, I noticed you archived the proposed blacklisting of blogspot.com addresses. Was the whole domain actually blacklisted? Spellcast ( talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly as directed, I placed links that are being used for spamming here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Linkspam_from_vandal_Wayne_Smith_AKA_Universe_Daily
The only response was to "monitor" it. Why? How much vandalism is he allowed? Look at this nonsense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Robert_G._Barrett&diff=next&oldid=172863431
Smith's Long Term Abuse page instructions are very clear -> block and revert on sight. Maybe you can help. Yale s ( talk) 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. And congrats on your RfA as well. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 02:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful
RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
If you hate thankspam, please forgive me, and do not worry that you will hurt my feelings by hitting delete. I promise I won't block you. Unless I mess up with those shiny new buttons. Mistakes do happen... (*cackle cackle*)
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
Dear Herbythyme,
Thank you for participating in
my recent RfA, which closed successfully with 22 supports, 1 oppose, and 2 neutrals. Whether you supported, opposed, stayed neutral or simply commented or asked a question, I would like to thank you for your time and for your comments. Special thanks must go to
User:Lar and
User:John, who not only conommed, but also devoted a large proportion of their time coaching me. I am sure that what I have learnt during the coaching process can be put to good use as an admin. As an admin, I will be willing to help out with anything I can so please do not hesitate to contact me if there is anything I could help out with. I will also do my best to address any concerns raised during the RfA.
Thanks.
Tbo 157
(talk)
16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This RFA thanks was inspired by User:Iridescent's and User:The Random Editor's RFA thanks which were both inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.
Thanks for adding this to the whitelist. I just tried it out at Jonas Brothers and it works. -- Scott Alter 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Herbythyme,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. |
Thanks for dealing with the vandal. I appreciate it. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks you, I didn't think about the log -- that was my first addition :) I'll make sure to use it in the future, thanks again -- SQL Query me! 08:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking of me. It was very kind of you, and I hope you have a lovely day. Maralia 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Herby, I've replied to your message on my talk page - I didn't intend to be so late... sorry. -- Iamunknown 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Dumb question whats the \b at the end (\bexample\.com\b)of the BL'd domain do? LOL-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. All better. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I Started a topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_spammer, and it appears the meta BL is proposed. Could you have a look. thanks-- Hu12 ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am happy if it is blocked if it is a spam site. I haven't checked to see if it was given that the news events it was used as a link for was real. What I want to do is to be able to update the Current Affairs page? Capitalistroadster ( talk) 08:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please make andrhanews.net active on the spam blacklist now? All of the links have been removed now. — Save_Us_ 229 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blacklisting the domains, see Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Spam#skin-disease-pictures.blogspot.com. But I forgot one domain and I thought maybe you haven't noticed my update on the WPSPAM page. So, could you blacklist wartpictures.blogspot.com, because he's still adding the link 2-3 times per day to Genital wart, each time from a different IP. Han-Kwang ( t) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was strange to see that after blocking a user, you then reverted the note on that IP's talk page explaining how crazy the block was. If you have anything to suggest that the IP in question is actually a proxy or zombie other than the fact that one of the two edits ever done by that IP address was mildly critical of wikipeida, I'd like to know what it is. I'm not assuming bad faith, but could you please explain these actions? 155.42.99.201 ( talk) 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PanchoHardy I hate having to keep bringing this up but it seems nobody bothered at all with both my request, and your re-request and he had since uploaded more blatantly copyvio images. This is taken from the internet and was taken in the eighties, inside a ring, inside a ring, television screenshot. To top it all off at the same time as he's uploaded thiese images he's had the gall to nominate some other images for deletion as copyright violations showing he is aware of what copyright is. [1] [2] [3]
This user knows what copyright is, and yet every upload of his that isn't a transwiki is a copyright violation that he has taken from someone else. This really needs to be taken care of. –– Lid( Talk) 14:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Herby,
Thanks for your help, much appreciated - Re: your comment on 'Alan Miles not being a major part of the Levellers because you have been to quite a few of their gigs over the years' --> Alan Miles' co-writing of their first Gold selling LP and performing on the recording, being a part of the era when they were creating the seminal sound that they have stuck to ever since, as well as co-writing the 'Liberty Song' on their second Platinum LP is certainly considered quite major to me and a vast oversight on your part I believe.
I do, however, agree with your comment on 'conflict of interest', I can see why this is crucial to the Wiki system
Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonviper ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Herby, thanks for your counsel. It was my first time adding to the blacklist. I wasn't really aware of the option, so I had solicited opinions in the admin IRC channel for how to deal with the situation (dynamic IP re-adding spam link, but other IPs making good edits) when one admin suggested this option and told me how to do it, upon viewing the article history. I can certainly solicit outside opinions on-wiki as well in the interest of transparency before adding a link to the list in the future. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your support in my RfA! I couldn't have and probably wouldn't have without your encouragement.
Now I have my first questions; I struggle to understand copyright and I know you know a lot about this from your Commons work.
Here's a photo from Commons of a Japanese stuffed animal: Image:Domokun.jpg; Domo-kun is the mascot for a Japanese TV station. According to the image description file, this image is free content and the image's creator has made it freely available per the terms of a free license. Here's my question: I'm guessing the underlying mascot is proprietary to the TV station -- so does that mean it's really fair use in this case?
Here's another one: Image:Godzilla (04).jpg: Godzilla, probably very proprietary/tradmarked/copyrighted/whatever, as a sculpture on a Japanese street. My thinking is that whatever claim the Godzilla movie owners held on this image, they licensed to the sculptor and the sculpture owner. But is its use in Wikipedia limited to fair use in a discussion of just that statue (and perhaps its surroundings and the sculptor)? Do we have an obligation to the movie studio here? What about the sculptor and/or sculpture owner? Then there's this deletion discussion that I don't really understand: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Godzilla hibiya japan 2006 9.jpg
I was going to leave this tasteless RfA thank you note (click on its corner link to open it) but the last thing I need to do is spam fair use images across 86 user talk pages.
Thanks again for the big stuff and now this little question. -- A. B. (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
So far, so good. No copyright vios with this one.
And thanks so much, as always. -- A. B. (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish I knew more about open proxies to deal with this. If you know it is one, by all means feel free to tweak the block. Spellcast ( talk) 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For a very special lesson you've given to me, which made my way at Wikipedia much easier —-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)) |
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I and others first developed this category over a year ago, we visualized it as a low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would trust, in fact a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for the community and bad for the admin. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process. I have in my User:Lar/Accountability page, given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. it is not needed to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want, rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived change. Further I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. Put it in this table: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and are entirely up to you. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should happen to be recalled. Thanks for your time and consideration and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek |
++ Lar: t/ c 00:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I do understand that. I'm trying to be civil.
I'm an admin myself, but I'd prefer not to remove the site because I'm honestly not familiar with this area of the project. Before this happened, I didn't even know we had such a list. It seems that a handful of users maintain it almost exclusively, and I didn't want to step on any toes. Would it be unwise for me to remove the link myself? Do people ever run an RfC on this issue? It seems like a waste to me, but I'm very frustrated with how this is going. Cool Hand Luke 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the request now. Waggers ( talk) 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Herby, I have added some arguments about the Pygmalion Books situation to their spam section. Out of all the other moderators involved, I have only seen you admit that there may have actually been some substantial non-spam in the information I added. While I'm willing to admit that I may have gone overboard with some articles, I believe your hunch here to be the case. I can go into further detail on the specific articles that I think merits their contribution if you'd like. 205.200.244.98 ( talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hu12, I had already added the link to the spam page in my message above. I'm not sure what the purpose is in posting redundant information here? 205.200.244.98 ( talk) 05:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the archive search working for you? Last few days its not been returning accurate results. -- Hu12 ( talk) 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Herbythyme! I use an automated tool (i.e. no human intervention) that runs 24/7 to detect whenever an XRumer spambot creates new pages. Whenever it finds such a page, it will delete it and block the IP that created it, as XRumer operates only either from botnets (in which case they should be blocked) or the spammer's computer (which should probably be blocked too). I know DerHexer handles XRumer a lot on the smaller wikis, maybe you should get in touch with him? Just get back to me on my talk page if you need my tool or anything else. All the best, east.718 at 21:00, December 27, 2007
re: [4] Appears a new attempt by easy-forex.com, to subvert the blacklist by using freewebs. see freewebs.com/tradeforeignexchange. Any chance this can be added to the global also?.. Ive already added this to the archive on meta, so logging the link above is already done. thanks-- Hu12 ( talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Re your message: Thanks for alerting me about that. I don't use my Meta account very often. He was a particularly persistent vandal. I see you blocked him over there. He ended up with a range block over here. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Herby,
For a final version of the message I've sent to many admins (I am up to the "F"s) see User:Lar/catmsg. You may want to review it. links changed (I changed your archive just now in fact) Note alsos... 1) since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table to validate that it was you that added it. 2) Since you're, I think, using my criteria/process, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with H only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, -- El on ka 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support | ||
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
I hope you remember about a site which i asked you block it. A website called empiretotalwar.co.uk. Well that guy is spamming his site again. [5]is there anything you can do to block him and his sites. He seems to having a dynamic ip and plus he is redirecting the traffic to that site. I know this going to be hard. Is there anything you can do about it?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 07:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think at some point this guy is going to have to stop for his own good. Our standard operating procedure is to tag every IP page with information on his domains, registration etc. We do this strictly for our own tracking purposes, but since Wikipedia has such high page-ranking power with Google, the more IP's he uses, the higher our internal spam-tracking pages rise on the results page when someone Googles his company. It's a perverse form of reverse-SEO I've seen some others commit on themselves. It's too bad, but there's not much we can do for this guy -- it's a byproduct of his own behaviour. -- A. B. (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast, thanks for the link to the local BL, didn't realize it was centralized to wiki's as well, I was quick like cobra removing them, but you were spry as a mongoose with that reply... :P Dureo ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Updated comment at [User_talk:Neparis#electrojets.com]. Did I list this correctly? Thanks for the help/comments. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"Too long" is not a valid reason if it's a spam-link. The blatant hoax Brahmanical See existed for nearly 3½ years before it was deleted. (See User:Shii/Hoaxes)
It's clear the original uploader was link-farming when you look at their contribs. Also, I don't know how to use any anti-spam bots. If you do, would you know of any way to track how many times it's been added and removed, or if any other anonymous IPs have add the same link to Wikipedia before? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is just my opinion. To me the blacklist is not a form of censorship but a method of preventing current disruption. If you disagree then the blacklist page is the place to air your views - others may agree. Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That does not appear to answer my questions. I do not know how to use anti-spam tools. Is it possible to look into the edit history surrounding that link to find if it has been added, removed, and re-added several times? It was originally added as linkfarming. If it was removed, then re-added multiple times, this would be "disruption," and removing it would not be "censorship." ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad it is gone. I am not against people profiting from Wikipedia, but referral links are a sneaky way of abusing users' trust on us. And while Amazon are very hard to catch, Play-Asia are easy. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back. I got busy and then just kind of forgot to check in. I seem to have managed to fall back into my old ways pretty quickly though. This could be bad for my real life! -- SiobhanHansa 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your message. There isn't a lot to say really. Some years ago I read The Moving Toyshop and found it boring and confusing. Last December I found two more Crispin novels in a second-hand book shop and read them. As far as I'm concerned, they are much better, especially Love Lies Bleeding. As there hadn't been any articles on those other novels, I started them. I'm still working on an expansion of The Case of the Gilded Fly—I'd like to give a plot summary (without giving away the solution) and explain some of the literary allusions in the text.
Generally, I set out about ten years ago to read up on all those Golden Age detective novels I had missed, and now I'm trying to see to it that each author is represented in Wikipedia with at least one article on an individual novel. This doesn't only include the cosy whodunnit variety. Over the years I've contributed articles on novels by Gilbert Adair, Eric Ambler, Anthony Berkeley, Freeman Wills Crofts, Carl Hiaasen, Jonathan Latimer, Raymond Postgate, and some more.
Some authors such as Elizabeth Daly or Elizabeth Ferrars do not even have their own articles yet, so basically my interest in Crispin will be fleeting as I'm likely to move on to other authors. Do you have any particular reason?
Best wishes, <K F> 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand the External Links policy along with the Conflict of Interest policy as well. I truly believe the links at Imag091307 and Backdoor.Win32.IRCBot are genuine links that contribute to the quality of the article as stated
Under the External Links policy
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
I also feel that a lot of Wikipedian readers have benefited from that link. HOWEVER I will not revert the edit if you still feel that you are correct. I am just showing my side of the story and hope you see where I am coming from.
Sincerely, augrunt ( talk) 05:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How are you doing. :). Can you tell me which is the fastest way to submit more than 8 articles for deletion?. I know the current way. But it quite tiresome when there is lot of articles for deletion. Any help?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this-- Hu12 ( talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Herby, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats. |
Thank you very much! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 09:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi from Watchet in West Somerset. As a local resident I try to add items to the "watchet" page of local interest, but today you have again accused me of spamming or advertising. I do NOT do this. The two links added are/were valuable information about the town of Watchet and ongoing redevelopment. How can they be spam? The other site is the town's own information site. There is no interest in search engine links - JUST to provide all visitors with information that will be useful. Please be kind enough to explain why you sent such a rude message. Or contact me direct on .
MR Richards
Hi from Watchet in West Somerset. As a local resident I try to add items to the "watchet" page of local interest, but today you have again accused me of spamming or advertising. I do NOT do this. The two links added are/were valuable information about the town of Watchet and ongoing redevelopment. How can they be spam? The other site is the town's own information site. There is no interest in search engine links - JUST to provide all visitors with information that will be useful. Please be kind enough to explain why you sent such a rude message.
MR Richards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.154.134 ( talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have suggested [6] that the account Gavin Collins be moved to GrawpSock and then I can create a new account in my name. Does that make sense? -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Title says it all, Herby. I'll have to work extra hard now to ensure that I deserve it! — SMALL JIM 11:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. This is the only way I can reach you as your block on Wikimedia commons prevents me from leaving a message on your talk page. I am trying to recover my password on Wikimedia commons but your IP address block is preventing me from doing so. Please can you lift it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Stalker IP range pending consensus. You may contact Herbythyme or one of the other administrators to discuss the block." So I try to contact Herbtythyme or one of the other administrators and get exactly the same message. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
she-j radio? It is not a commercial radio, it is a website where people can listen to minimal techno tracks released under a creative commons license. There is absolutely NO advertising on the site, nor we promote anything. I don't understand why a link to "minimal techno podcast" is accepted, but you don't accept a non-profit site dedicated to this kind of music. I think it is a good resource for people to get to know free music of this genre. I am against any kind of spamming and advertising, I really think it is an appropriate link here. Why has it been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amber sunshower ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that it could have been useful to give an example of this kind of music. But, you're right, the world can go on even without those links. And even without many other information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amber sunshower ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, although someone appears not to have understood the sentence "If you were not personally involved in the deletion of the image, please do not take the following comments personally." ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ABF#Removal_of_image_from_.22Permian.E2.80.93Triassic_extinction_event.22)
What do you suggest would be an effective way to "have a go at the system"? The current system for managing images needs to be critiqued because it is at present a collection of obstacles and hidden traps, as shown by the deleted image. Wikipedia is trying to get and retain knowledgeable editors, and IMO user-unfriendly features are about as big a deterrent as as vandals, flamers and POV-pushers but it's less easy to see how to deal with user-unfriendly features.
PS the fact that at present only admins have universal log-ins is itself a user-unfriendly feature, since en.wikipedia editors get messages and other "inputs" from people with universal accounts and find it difficult to respond. (I've had a such a message on my Talk page; once I found that my en.wikipedia id was not valid for responding to it, I simply dropped the matter except for watching that no undesirable action was taken). Philcha ( talk) 10:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The In Universe tag is for fictional works. Mokele-mbembe is not a work of fiction even though many/most don't think it exists. This is not an appropriate tag and there are two others there. Niet Comrade ( talk) 15:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Herbie. I've addressed those two points at length on the RfB page, so I do not wish to clutter it up with unnecessary repetition. Re: time, please see case precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3 which had this exact issue. Re: desire, yes, I do want to be a bureaucrat because I do think I would be an asset to the project as such. There is no other reason why I would subject myself to the intense dissection of near every one of my wiki actions (for example, an oppose based on a post over 20 months old) for kicks . One has to want to serve in this role in order to do a good job. Your concern should be do I want it for ego, or do I want it to help. I think my history shows the latter, but if you truly think its the former, then you were right in opposing. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Herby.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi ( talk) 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that quickly. Here's the meta blacklist proposal; declined because I didn't provide evidence that it was on multiple wikis (though I do know that the link exists on the .zh version). They've been quite persistent about trying to add that link (even resorting to using redirect domains to sneak it in). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Herby,
I notice I have been flagged for adding inappropriate links to various driving pages of Wikipedia. I'm hoping you might reconsider this flag as I really feel the content on drivingfast.net is relevant and informative for the driving pages. It isn't a commercially driven site, and I feel it's one of the best independent sources of information on driving techniques. The average visitor I get from Wikipedia remains on the site for over six minutes which must say something on the relevance of the content and I feel the flash animations are more informative than static images can be. Really appreciate if you could take the time to reconsider the decision.
Many thanks
Jonnogibbo ( talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed my talk page was for my purposes only - I have taken on board the message so decided to remove it but will leave it now. I don't intend on adding more links, but think it's a shame to remove relvent content. Have you had a look at the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnogibbo ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)