---

I really cannot understand the reason why you want to delete the external links to the last two articles. Could you please specify the reasons. Hallenrm 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the 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, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. on your User page ( User:Hallenrm ) You may see some of my writings at scibd.com. Being that the content of the links were authored by yourself, is an unfortunate violation of WP:COI and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER-- Hu12 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Your recent deletion of the reference link in Ayesha Takia may be a bit off base. Used as a reference, She signed a contract for Socha Na Tha, then for Taarzan: The Wonder Car. However, delays in making Socha Na Tha meant that Taarzan released first and was therefore her "debut" film. is a direct quote from the referenced article which in that sense may be a copywrite violation instead. The reference link was http: //www.chakpak.com/celebrity/ayesha-takia/biography/29638 Dbiel ^{( Talk)} 06:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Note, this looks like it may have been archived before being read, so I have copied it back into the current talk page. If this is unwanted, please feel free to delete it. Dbiel ^{( Talk)} 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Unfortunatly its apart of a wide spread multiple Wiki spam campaign and has been removed per policy. WikiProject Spam Case-- Hu12 05:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply, but I think you miss the more important issue, that of copywrite violation that may apply to more than the one passage I quoted above. Dbiel ^{( Talk)} 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think the page really fits the spirit of WP:CSD#G11 so I've removed the tag. I think AfD would be a more proper way of action. Pascal.Tesson 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I know you have no choice, but I was just curious if, when you were busy blacklisting the bircy.com website, and you got to the Margonin article, if you happened to view the birchy.com article on Margonin and noticed how much material you cut off from wikiPedia users. I know all the arguements, and all the justifications, etc. but was just curious if *you* paid any attention to what exactly you did. Or are you just an automaton? There *is* and *never will be* a more complete article on this topic. (and yes, I know wikiPedia doesn't care whether articles contain links to important external sources. Btw, blacklisting all external links to birchy.com, as punishment, isn't really very fair. Now, if after being called on the carpet, I had continued to add great quanities of external links, then perhaps a blacklisting would be in order. But I haven't. It was a difference of opinion about how to present material, not intentional spamming. Since then, I have not added one link to birchy.com nor any other site. If I hadn't linked to the thousands of highly detailed articles in the Kreis articles, articles that I expanded from material already published on birchy.com, then I doubt anyone would consider the individual "See Also" links as spam, which they certainly aren't. Bwood 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Your addition of 1191 links to this article and the 550 links added to "Kreis Koschmin" is blatant Spamming. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. see conflict of interest. This has been discussed previously here and here by other concerned editors. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto birchy.com, right?-- Hu12 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No, not "funnel". Not any more than any other valid external links. It just so happens that I had the ability to build those "valid-in-intent" links in automatically, as I was modifying my material on birchy.com for display on the equivalent Kreise articles on wikiPedia. Those same links exist in the birchy.com article, but they are internal. Now that I've had my nose rubbed in the details of what wikiPedia admins consider to be spam and the rational behind it, I yield to reality, but in no way agree with it the application in this case. Despite the large number of links, this was in fact only one instance of non-intentional spamming. The links were all of the same type (links to more detailed articles on specific villages and church parishes, etc, on 40 articles all of the same type (Kreis articles). If I were a true spammer, I would have tried to circumvent. It was only *one* instance (although a very *large* instance). I would have done the same (in ignorance of the realities of the current state of wikiPedia) if the original material contained links to some other website (one I didn't have any interest in), if I had the material, permission to convert it for use on wikiPedia, and that site existed. Don't let the sheer volume blind you to what really happened. It was a batch process. You still didn't answer my original question. Didn't you happen to look at the data that you cut off from wikiPedia users interested in Margonin? If the birchy.com article isn't a valid external link, then there *are* no valid external links in wikiPedia. Bwood 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

btw, since everything else has become so moribund on wikiPedia, is there a formal appeal process available on blacklisting? Or can a few admins be over-zealous without any checks and balances? Bwood 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? -- Barberio 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You removed an external link ( Bristol Dyno - What is a dynamometer?) from Dynamometer and Horsepower, why? It has a very good explanation of how an inertia type dyno works. IJB TA 05:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Corporate Thugz Entertainment, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{ prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I note you have reinstated the COI2 template on the Legal Week page. Can you please advise as to how I/we should go forward from here - as far I can see, the page contains nothing but statements of fact. If there are particular aspects of the page that you believe to be problematic, then please identify them. I hope that in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, we can sort the issues out and move forward. Thanks. -- Legalweek 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia. Unfortunately in this case, your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests. Your contributions to wikipedia under User Legalweek, consist mainly of editing the article Legal Week and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be "Incisive Media Investments Ltd" related only. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. See the welcome page to learn more. Thank you-- Hu12 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concerns that I may be too closely associated with content of the Legal Week page. My motivation for creating the page was simply that other Wikipedia pages linked to a blank Legal Week page; hence, I was simply attempting to further fill out the Wikipedia universe. I took due consideration in maintaining a neutral tone, describing the magazine in simple statements of fact. I now appreciate that one of the key guidelines of Wikipedia is that contributors should not create or edit pages about their own company - I admit that I may have 'jumped in' to Wikipedia too fast, without being fully aware of the correct protocol. However, my question now is - where do we go from here? Will the Legal Week page be adorned with with the Conflict of Interest template indefinitely? Given the growing relevance of Wikipedia, it doesn't look great for the page to have such a dominating (and potentially damaging) allegation at the top of the page - particularly since Legal Week's style is to remain balanced, neutral and unbiased! As I have said, I appreciate that my 'crime' was that I should not have created the page in the first place; but having done so, is it correct that Legal Week be 'punished' with a permanent allegation of bias? To be honest, I'd rather not have the page in Wikipedia at all if the COI template is permanent. Thanks. -- Legalweek 12:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Any update on this? -- Solicitor1 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote, such as was done under your former username Legalweek, Where the aims of Wikipedia are ignored in order to advance this an outside trade magazine. Not sure what kind of update you expect... Wikipedia exists for the purpose of creating a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, this is not a "punishment", this is an encyclopedia.-- Hu12 12:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If I had been more cautious, I would have realised I was not permitted to add the Legal Week page, and I would not have done so, but the fact is that I have - and if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then Legal Week is now permanently defined as a 'biased' magazine. This is incorrect. As for the update I expect, I want to know how the Legal Week page can develop so there is no permanent accusation of bias. If you yourself had decided to add Legal Week to Wikipedia, what would you have written? What would an independent editor have written? I firmly believe any independent editor would have written the same as I did. Would an entry more like that of The Lawyer magazine be more suitable? Please can I ask you not to ignore me in future - I'm trying to be reasonable and resolve a problem. Whatever happened to 'Don't bite the newcomer'? -- Solicitor1 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand what your saying and empathize, however you're failing to see this from the point of Wikipedia's interests. Editing in the interests of public relations is never acceptable. Its apparrent the edits were made with the sole intent of improving that organization's image. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia. So please be reasonable (as you say you are). The editorial template added was so that future development of the Legal Week article can occur in a Neutral point of view by established editors. You created the article and are the Primary editor. Legal Week now has a entry on Wikipedia and the template is accurate in order to maintain neutrality. -- Hu12 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

So, talking hypothetically: if I personally never edit the page again, but a totally unbiased, independent editor goes in and re-writes the whole article, will the COI template be removed? Do you think that it is likely that an established editor will do this? Aren't you an 'established editor'? Why not act constructively and attempt to remedy the perceived problems with the page? Or is that against the rules too?-- Solicitor1 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but can you explain how the link you removed was multi-link spam? I just looked over Sexperts other edits, and I see other links to a different articles at the same site; considering that the articles are all different, it's not WP:SPAM. Do you know, by way of an IP address revealing the person to be at the magazine that they are in conflict of interest? Or did they just find a site that had a lot if information on stuff they were interested in, and add it? Their links have been there for several months, and every one seems to be a good reference, despite the clump being added all at once.

Either way, I would like to revert the Queer Eye link. 'Spam' or not, it was a decent link on a page that doesn't have enough linkage to be taking things away. However, since you removed it, I wanted to give you the chance to revert it before I do (unless your pref is that a regular editor of the page do so).-- Thespian 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Here is the addition I believe you are talking about ( citation spam addition for nsrc.sfsu.edu). This is a domain level WP:COI spam campaign for nsrc.sfsu.edu. by User_talk:Sexperts and his/her various WP:SPA accounts. This is an apparent long term problem of abusing Wikipedia, based on this users history. The contributions to wikipedia under Sexperts and IP 63.195.62.110 consist mainly of adding nsrc.sfsu.edu and is considered WP:Spam. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Just because nobody noticed this spam campaign a long time ago does not mean there is some "right" to keep bad faith edits. However, if you feel in this single instance the citation linkspam is actualy citing the text that existed prior to the addition, feel free to add it back. -- Hu12 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Mostly what I needed to know was that you had a real connection between the user and spamming, because from what I can see as a non-admin didn't look any different than when I find a strong site with lots of stuff and add it to several pages that all fall within my interests. On the page in question, the link was indeed a good link (though really, it supported the line right after where it was even more strongly; I've been meaning to get to the Queer Eye page for a while, because all the links in it are inline, and it has a lot of uncited stuff - I might not have noticed it on a page that I didn't have on my back burner just for a cite cleanup).

Its a shame the user didn't play within the rules, because several things that were added look like solid links, but it'll depend on users now having to re-evaluate (if they notice the removal), instead of 'Sexperts' et al providing the link more passively for other uninvolved editors consideration. Bah. -- Thespian 04:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is a better quality project because of conscientious editors like youself, thanks for the note.-- Hu12 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Well spotted with the spam campaign. I have taken the liberty of reverting two of your removals (Childbirth and Midwifery) because the reference provided was actually a good one. Thanks for your sharp eye though! Gillyweed 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note.;)-- Hu12 06:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, Hu12. I wanted to let you know that I'm reverting your deletion of a citation of nsrc.sfsu.edu in the San Francisco Pride article. Although User:Sexperts added that citation in March 2007, I reviewed it at the time, and I think it's a valid citation that's relevant to the article content. It is not in the External Links section, it's an in-line citation. In general I see your point about Sexperts' contributions seeming like WP:SPAM. I also think that in many cases they look relevant to the articles involved, and if structured as proper citations of facts in the article might be useful additions to Wikipedia. However, I respect your view that collectively they constitute a spam campaign. I'm making a similar comment at User talk:Sexperts. Thanks for your hard work stamping out spam on Wikipedia. -- Jdlh | Talk 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The article you were looking for is Alecto: Songbook. (It was moved when the page on the mythological figure was created). I also see a removed afd in its page history. Rigadoun (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I reverted you recent edit. I feel that inclusion of the statement about the album being well-received by critics is necessary in the article since the band was having a slight slump prior to the release of the album. If you feel that my revert was in error, you may leave a message on my talk page or the discussion page for the article. If I have come across as angry/cross, please forgive me - that was never my intention. Cheerio! aJCfreak yAk 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I tend to agree with you on that point, thanks for reverting. Cheers-- Hu12 12:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

A discussion concerning your is occurring at Talk:Zi wei dou shu#The recent external links removal discussion. --  Satori Son 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I replied ;-- Hu12 02:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Please stop mass removal of Iranica from the pages it is a good reference Alex Bakharev 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

RE: WikiProject_Spam case

Please refrain from reinserting known spammed links. Links being removed are specifically multi article linkspam for iranica.com by 160.39.32.132, see WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI.

known Spam sock accounts for iranica.com

EIranica ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
160.39.32.132 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
-- Hu12 02:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Iranica is one of the main sources used for Iran related articles. We cannot remove them wholesale. Please discuss your proposals on Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board. I will unblock you if you promise to stop removing the links until you get some consensus with the Iranian users Alex Bakharev 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm an Admin.. working on a WikiProject Spam case. Links being removed are specifically multi article linkspam for iranica.com by 160.39.32.132 only under the Spam policy. Known Spam sock accounts for iranica.com are EIranica ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 160.39.32.132 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) so far, however this is an ongoing investigation. I assume the block was in error and will be noted as such in the unblock log (I am not bot..LOL).-- Hu12 02:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

OK I have unblocked you. Please discuss Iranica links with the Iranian users. Sorry for being rude, but my Email box was bustling from messages to stop "misbehaving bot" Alex Bakharev 03:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem, thanks. Good faith additions of the Iranica links were not removed, only the links spammed by 160.39.32.132.-- Hu12 03:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You never got back to me on the discussion page so... I want to know what your problem is with a video search engine going under the freaking video search engine categorie! You claim that this is spam, I claim that that is bull shit! It is a very useful website and who gives a rats ass if it has an out going link. You are not doing anyone here on wikipedia by taking that off, if anything you are pissing off people and depriving them of finding what they are looking for! Wikipedia is suposed to be a free encyclopedia editable by all if they are adding relveant true information. I have done that and to ban me for it is mentally retarted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickboyett ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 2 July 2007.

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 are the founder of Vdoogle. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Vdoogle. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Nickboyett and IP's 67.182.4.58 67.182.36.71 67.182.36.111 12.44.170.10 67.181.201.132 67.182.36.151, consist entirely of adding external links to Vdoogle and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Vdoogle related only. Please do not create articles or continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. 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" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see the welcome page and Wikipedia:Civility. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote Vdoogle right? -- Hu12 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes I am here to help improve wikipedia and not to just promote vdoogle.com, I only added vdoogle and nothing else cause thats all i know about. I could go around adding other stuff but im not an expert on anything else, but I am an expert on Vdoogle. I use alot of different computers, so im bound to have several IP adresses, I dont always take the time to log into my account. Wikipedia might not be a directory of links, but i do believe that it is appropriate to have one if it is indeed relevant— Nickboyett ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC). reply

I understand what your saying, However WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest states clearly Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. furthermore and Specificaly, Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional editing, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. Any further discussion should be directed to the WikiProject Spam Case.-- Hu12 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

So if someone else had posted it there then it would be fine? It still isnt clear to me, because its not a promotional thing, im just listing it there, and if they want to go there then they can indeed click it. That is their choice and i dont believe that you or any one should prevent them from having that choice. It should be made avaible to them. Maybe if we add a links section to that page? and say something like, Links to video search engines— Nickboyett ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies. If you have content to contribute, why not contribute that. You said your here to help improve wikipedia and not here promote vdoogle.com, right? Remember this is an encyclopedia.-- Hu12 23:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

purée. would be my favorite.. Congrats, Well deserved!!!-- Hu12 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

PS. try not to block yourself.. it can be tempting..LOL ;-- Hu12 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

See this topic I started on Annymous Dissident's Talk Page, and thanks for your support. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{( PokéNav| Trainer Card)} 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi - back on 4 November 2006 I researched and rewrote the oft-stomped-on-by-Panda 'Criticism' section of Panda Software to make it stand up properly, including providing four references for its single sentence. Since then I have had to restore the section once or twice after it was removed without comment by IP users in the geographical area of Panda's headquarters. You recently deleted the two citations for the second half of the sentence, one with edit summary "rm blog that blocks referals from Wikipedia per WP:RS". That site, zolibog.com, did in fact block referrals from Wikipedia at some point in the past, but a few months ago stopped doing so; the link works fine. Zoliblog.com seems well-respected and has thousand of favorable hits on Google. I see that you warned User:Zoliblog today for some spamming going back to July of last year, but I really don't want to lose the one good link supporting a very valid and still current criticism of Panda. If you have no objection, I'll restore it. Thanks for considering this issue. -- CliffC 18:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You have indeed done a nice job on the article, I've restored the edit to the previous version, thank you for the note;) -- Hu12 02:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I cluelessly stepped in on Nsusa's behalf by unblocking him; I trust you know what you're doing and hope I haven't created too much of a hassle. I let myself be social-engineered for a bit there. -- The Cunctator 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

AGF is always the right step, Unfortunatly this case has evidence to the contrary. The reason for User_talk:Swatjester Blocking Nsusa is due to the off wiki threats and attacks against Wikipedia. see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Don.27t_template_the_n00bs_either Defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and Off-wiki violations are grounds for blocking. I would, in this case, strongly reconsider your unblock.-- Hu12 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

To be honest, I don't care what he says off-wiki. I think people take that kind of thing way too seriously. Easy enough just to judge on the contributions. I'm interested to see what he does with the account -- I would guess sock-puppeting instead of using it any more, in which case it doesn't matter if it's blocked or not, and we come off looking good. Who knows, maybe he'll become a good Wikipedian.-- The Cunctator 18:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Respectfully, you may not care about off-Wikipedia defamation, but many of us do. If the original administrator's decision is reasonable, there should be no basis for overturning it. In this case the off wiki threats and attacks against Wikipedia were a reasonable cause for a block. AGF was not a reasonable cause in this case for unblocking, as the block was after the threats. Nevertheless, I would have blocked him myself based on the threats, if he wasnt already blocked. As you may or may not know, alot of work and research goes into tracking down these kinds of cases by myself and other administrators. I trust in the future, discussion on your part will take place with those involed first, especialy prior to knowing the full facts of the case. -- Hu12 01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(unindent) Reblocked accordingly-- Hu12 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

What's with this edit to User talk:Irstu, adding a link to a non-existant domain to the spam warning I added? It seems to make no sense at all... Wibbble 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

for tracking..... Click Here . Very helpfull @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam Why not join us?: -- Hu12 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I see. I do remove a fair bit of linkspam, but only as I come across it. I'm not interested in hunting it out - I don't have time to dedicate to that sort of thing. Wibbble 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Your always welcome to post any spam you come across that might be worth looking into further over @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam -- Hu12 23:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand that this IP added links to a website that was in their "domain" of sorts, but even though it might be a conflict of interest, it was completely relevent to the articles and a good source. If I added that link then I don't think you would have deleted it (unless there's something I don't understand about this matter). Might we replace the links? SeanMD80 ^{talk | contribs} 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. Yes its their corporate domain, and a major WP:COI. Not sure which article you mean, if "you" added it back its fine, just let me know which article.so it isn't removed again.-- Hu12 00:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I meant the articles Nihoa, Necker Island, Maro Reef, etc. All the ones in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, edited by 65.91.82.62. SeanMD80 ^{talk | contribs} 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I rolled back my edits on the articles you mentioned, feel free to add back the pbs.org links to the "ect." you mentioned above. if there are any kqed.org links, let me know which articles you've added those back too. thanks again for the note-- Hu12 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Gotcha. Over and out. SeanMD80 ^{talk | contribs} 00:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Why did you delete the reference on Evgenia Eremina? The reference works. There seems no reason to delete it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddy1 ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 July 2007.

Its a spam addition by Kryptonite Kid [1]. Its just a part of a wide scale spam campaign and was removed. → See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Jupitermedia_Corporation_.28Jupiterimages.29-- Hu12 04:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from removing readding prod tags, like you did to stock.xchng. I recommend that you read up on the prod policy. Sala Skan 11:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Removing prod tags? I think you mean replacing. thanks -- Hu12 12:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oops, yes, you're right. I meant readding. The fact that someone removed a prod tag means that the deletion is controversial, and that you should not readd it. That's what the policy says.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salaskan ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 July 2007.

The tag was removed withought sufficiently addressing the problem, which was the case here. Here is the diff between prods [2], the notability issue was not addressed, nor was there even a hint of an attempt to do so. the tag itself states You may remove this message if you improve the article in this case, an anon WP:SPA IP with no other edits [3], simply removed the tag withought improving the article, and was considered vandalism not a contested deletion, despite the weasel worded edit summary. No objection have been raised on the talk page. The prod was replaced as the problem concern was not sufficiently addressed. Any way its at afd, which I'm hoping generates interest in improving the article, as it appears it has. thanks -- Hu12 02:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, wanted to just give you thanks for following up with the whole speedy deletion / spam stuff the user Paulgossen was doing. I'm not the most "advanced" Wiki user but I know spam when I see it... and while editing out spammy external links is what I do best, I wanted to take it a step further. So I did what I could - put up his entry for Speedy deletion.

Thanks!-- Christian B 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Certainly the right call. Thank you for finding it. It was a part of a larger problem, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Business_Transformed_Inc._and_Paul_Gossen. Sadly self-promotion/Spam is an unfortunate byproduct of an openly edited encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!-- Hu12 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

If you're interested, have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam your certainly welcome to join-- Hu12 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I recently added the entry for Stillwater Mining Company. I tried to make it neutral, objective, with verifiable information. Why is it flagged for removal. I see plenty of other company entries on wikipedia. Why all of those existing entries are not commercial advertisement but mine is. Please explain. Must I make the entry completely dry of content to be fit to wikipedia policy? I am not trying to spam. I am not trying to advertise. I just want to contribute something useful but everything I did gets flagged or removed. I am not trying to sabotage. But the policy is so hard to follow! Silverbach 00:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, is there a double standard? I think wikipedia should not advertise for individual person. Look at this page Lubos Motl. Tons of personal ads and tons of clearly opinion biased external links. But no one touches it. And any page I added a relevant external link, you flag it as a spam. I really can not understand the double standard. Please explain. Silverbach 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that other articles exist doesn't prove that your article in question should also exist. So lets stay on topic.

Second, conflict of interest Policy. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Stillwater and related. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent which is also in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Looking through your contributions as a whole, they all seem to be Stillwater and related only. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for promotion pourposes. Wikipedia is NOT a " repository of links" or a " vehicle for advertising".

You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote Stillwater and related right? -- Hu12 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You said You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. But the external links I provide, www.stillwaterpalladium.com, www.palladiumcoins.com, etc. Those web site I do NOT OWN, I do NOT maintain, and I do NOT represent, and I do NOT have control off. It does not fit your description.

I understand the conflict of interest prohibit promoting commercial interest. But it seems you have broaden the concept of COI too wide and too generic. I am a human being so I necessarily have a conflict of interest editing a clause related to human being versus other animals. So should a clause about human being be edited by a monkey instead of by a human being due to COI? If there is a clause about woman does it mean only man can touch it because any woman editor will have conflict of interest? If it is an entry about gay and lesbian does that mean only straight people can touch it? If this is an entry about global warming, a some what controvesial topic, does that mean NONE of the environmental scientists can edit the entry, because all of them will have vested interests in promoting their favorite theory?

The idea of COI is good but I am afraid you pushed it too far! Any one that is knowledgeable about any topic must necessarily have more or less some interest in the topic and hence conflict of interest. Some one totally ignorant about a certain topic might be the best candidate to edit that topic, because such person is guaranteed voided of COI. If so there will not be any valuable information exist in wikipedia.

Since I am Peak Oil aware, I guess I am now in COI and can not touch any topic related to peak oil, or North America Natural Gas Crisis, or anything related to energy. Is that right? Since I am knowledgeable in physics and math I can not touch anything related to physics and math either due to COI. Where does COI policy end?

I am trying to be neutral. And I think I did. But you do not allow me as much as simply name something by name, or state a fact as a fact. Stillwater Mining does have the world's highest grade ore and that is FACT so how come making that statement is a conflict of interest? That's way too much. If wikipedia is not about documenting knowledge of known facts then what it is?

I am a new user. My recent experience dimishes my initial enthusiasm in volunteerly contributing to Wikipedia. Go spend your time and clean up the mess since obviously you do not think it is even appropriate for me to make improvements of those entries that I touched. I will always have conflict of interest no matter what.

Silverbach 03:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Can I get a hand from you re: User:Cybermonsters. I wont be able to follow him much longer. Montco 05:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm following him. -- Hu12 05:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for backing me up. I have to get to sleep. Montco 05:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Good work! Ive blocked his account for spamming-- Hu12 05:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Hu12,

Please note that the user DBose2 is vandalising Wikipedia articles. He has also started attacking me personally by changing my user page intentionally, saying I am a plagiariser. Please do something about it. The following link might be of help for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DBose2

Thanks! Sreejith Kumar 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. On 17 July 2007 you deleted a template but the deletion notice pointed to different template with a similar name. The discussion was relating to this other template, and although the consensus was to delete this other template, there was no discussion on deleting the template you removed on 17 July. I believe you have deleted the template in error. Could you let me know more about the circumstances please? For reference, the discussion related to the {{ Forgotten-Realms-Wikia}} template and you deleted the {{ Forgottenrealmswiki}} template. Please feel free to reply directly on this page or on my talk page according to your preference. Thanks. Fw190a8 20:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

→ See also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_9#Template:Forgotten-Realms-Wikia

→ See also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_16#Wikia_besed_and_other_template

-- Hu12 08:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

In view of this, what, in your opinion, is the best way of providing a link to the extra information available at this site? Should this be included in the "External links" section? Fw190a8 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

In short, it appears the link is outside the guidelines for inclusion. Seems consensus for this was reached in both the above cases. -- Hu12 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That isn't a very useful response because it does not explain why the link is outside the guidelines, nor does it help to find the information on those guidelines. I am considering a deletion review for the following reasons:

• {{ HarryPotterWiki}} continues to exist despite identical issues to {{ Forgottenrealmswiki}}
• The arguments presented for and against the deleted template are the same as those presented on the deletion log for the Harry Potter Wiki template

As you are the deleter of the template, I would prefer to discuss this with you before requesting a deletion review. Can you explain why links to a specialist Harry Potter wiki are allowed, yet links to other specialist wikis are disallowed and considered spam? Fw190a8 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please don't argue based on what other templates do or don't exist. Pointing out that a template on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the Forgottenrealmswiki should also exist.

The consensus process seems to have been reached for Forgottenrealmswiki in all its forms. Before pursuing a Deletion review read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion and be sure to confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:speedy deletions or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Both valid deletion debates (noted above) will be discussed in any deletion review. Including this solicitation ref [4] and the WikiProject Spam case In which template spamming was used to evade detection, along with any involvement by Fw190a8 -- Hu12 05:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that an article's existence cannot prove the entitlement of any other article to exist, but this does not apply here. It states: "...so it's better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate..." I believe that the reasons that the {{ HarryPotterWiki}} template continues to exist are also the reasons that the {{ Forgottenrealmswiki}} template should exist. I am not claiming that one template should exist because the other exists. "In which template spamming was used to evade detection" is a biased and unfair assumption. What qualifies my contributions as "template spamming" and what evidence can you provide that this was used to "evade detection"? Fw190a8 12:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I was unable to save to the Wikiproject Spam page. Unfortunately I have run out of warnings.

• explorepda.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammer

• 59.92.87.31 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Montco 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, whilst vigilance against spam is very much appreciated, I would appreciate it if you can confer with someone within the wikiproject (jewelry) before removing sources. Ganoksin is the largest community of handmade jewelry and have galleries of many designers (for free). It's simply a huge portal. Whilst advertisements in itself could be a reason to consider a source too commercial, I can point out many sources, including those placed by longtime editors and admins (such as in geology mindat.org and webmineral.com). If you have a serious objection to the link then we can discuss it on the discussion page of that page. The page is being monitored by several editors as well as admins already. Gem-fanat 14:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Unfortunatly Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising and Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET are specifically Links normally to be avoided per the External links policy#5 and #10. Unfortunatly a portal site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject WP:EL#13. Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet and "comments" associated with blog type entries should not normally be used as sources as these media sources do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources, which is inline with WP:EL#2.-- Hu12 09:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Care to clarify why mineral.galleries.com or amethyst.galleries.com is allowed over 200 times for several mineral entries. Same with mindat.org or webmineral.com ?? If you had taken the time to go through Ganoksin you see it is actually much more than just a uselist. I really can use my time better than to start an edit war here, however I DO expect that if you want to take out sources on pages that are within the wikipedia project, you would take the time to announce, discuss and leave a message. Especially since you accurately quote "should NORMALLY be avoided" which would suggest a *dialogue* or at least an enquiry of why a certain source was placed. Gem-fanat 23:14, 26 July 2007 (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 other links exist in that article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. Sometimes we just need one site representative of a category as long as it meets WP:RS. Those other links may need need to go, too. However, the fact that we haven't gotten around to it, yet, does not mean untill that time the Ganoksin link should stay. Remember this link was not a "source", its an External link and being so it fails important criterion for inclusion per the External links policy. Conversley even if this were a "source" (a citeable reference such as Wikipedia:Embedded citations), which it is/was not, it fails WP:RS. Each link is considered on its merits. Links "normally to be avoided" are to be avoided unless it meets Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked or prohibited by restrictions on linking in short "one should avoid" linking to these links. Hope that clarifies the policy issue.-- Hu12 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

True and fair enough..thanks for the explanation. I have one question I was not able to find out. Sometimes sources are added as reference, since they were used to help write the article, but there are no quotes. So it's merely stated at the end of the article: references.. book ABC. Are the criteria for adding a reference (in a generalized manner) the same as for citations ? Gem-fanat 08:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A source, even without a direct quote should be cited, for example at the end of the paragraph the data was used. Much of the knowledge in articles comes from books (directly or indirectly), however they are not always cited, and they should be. Sales and affiliate links to book sellers are always discouraged and are removed. One easy way to cite a book is Harvard referencing;

• Clancy, T. (1996a). Executive Orders. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN  0-399-14218-5

Personaly I feel most people are more inclined to read a book on a topic they have a "real" interest in. Plenty of citation info can be found citation guideline for instructions on citing sources, Wikipedia:Book sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates. thanks-- Hu12 08:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing though as I mentioned on the talk page, one more thing . . . I think you may have whitelisted User:Warthogdemon, instead of me. But I'm not sure. - WarthogDemon 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Er, a link so you don't have to browse: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/muppet.wikia.com. - WarthogDemon 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Your welcome, thanks for the note. ;)-- Hu12 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

You blocked BService for adding the On-line Merck links to wikipages, but I'd just finished praising him for adding it to the page. The Merck manual is the standard medical textbook from what I understand, virtually handed out at med school. I thought they were good additions to the page! Poor boy may be confused. Anyway, I'm not going to try to re-insert it, but I do think the manual is actually worth adding to the page. My $0.02. WLU 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the timming, I know you ment well. While I may agree with you on the manual, it doesn't confer a license for BService to to spam Wikipedia. Unfortunatly he has violated the Spam policy. The larger picture entails WP:NOT#LINK. Thanks for the note.-- Hu12 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't see it as spamming though, as it is a highly respected document with it's on wikilink-style internal links. Did you ever get a reply from him/her/it/them to your warnings? If nay, that's definitely spamming behaviour, but this could be an arguable case for bad intentions having good results. Anyway, it's still good to know the MM has a webpage as it would be an excellent source for general citations. Thanks, WLU 20:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You may not see it as such but Wikipeda does. Spamming is about promoting a site or a site you love such as linking to it excessively, its not always about commercial sites. Spamming can be a behavior don't forget. Have a look at BService contribs little to no edits asside from adding the link, thats spamming. Respected document or not, if this was the constitution or magna Carta, it would be spamming. Wikipedia is not a repository for links, its an encyclopedia. content is king. ;)-- Hu12 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Something to ponder, thanks. What would you think of other editors judiciously adding the MM to certain pages...

Actually, at this point were I to add it to pages, it would be as a generic reference. WLU 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

In the case of Wikipedia:Citing sources, it would be appropriate. Linking to it just becase there is a topic related, would violate WP:NOT#LINK. -- Hu12 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Noted. Also, could you have a quick look at this, specifically this, and does it rate an instaban? All the other edit's I've seen by him are vandalism. WLU 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, obvious troll. Another admin has blocked him. keep eye out, trolls usualy pattern edit.-- Hu12 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Hu12, I noticed that you removed the "Prius vs. other transportation alternatives" paragraph from the Toyota Prius article. I had also removed it (twice), for similar reasons, earlier today. It was restored (twice) by the original author, so I started a discussion about it on the article's talkpage. Perhaps you would like to add your views there, and your reasons too for removing the paragraph. -- de Facto ( talk). 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello,

You recently removed a link from the Finning Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finning

to a page with additional information on the company:

http://www[DOT]andrewjohns[DOT]ca/EN/main/299/317/866/researchfocus_ftt.html

I would like to make a case that this page has valuable information on the company and also gives wikipedia readers access to industry research reports that they would not otherwise be able to read. We put alot of effort into keeping our company-specific pages updated and I would implore that you allow links to company pages on our site for the benefit of wikipedia users.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Thanks.

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{ inactive}} and/or {{ historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Hu12. I just noticed you changing a bunch of headers I've put on spammers talk pages from www.xxxx.xxx to spam.xxxx.xxx Does the blacklist deliberate allow links that start with "spam" ? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

No, it doesn't, although thats a good idea. Any full url would be blocked despite the what ever the "subdomain" is named. The "spam" I added, hope you don't mind, makes it easier to track. See for example squidoo.com search or the one you caught goarticles.com spammer search. I normaly add, or in this case replace the www's with "spam", because it's easier to identify when its spamming related, opposed to just a regular discussion link. I added a space in the link http:// www.unleashmypower.com, that is the one blacklisted. Sorry the edit summary wasnt clear.-- Hu12 00:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I see - I'll start doing the same. -- SiobhanHansa 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

If you check the the goarticles.com search, you'll find more Andrew Stone linked articles at the botom.-- Hu12 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Will check them out tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up. -- SiobhanHansa 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI, Special:Contributions/172.190.149.110's deletion several hours ago of the wackypages2005.com blacklisting request caught my attention so I checked to see what was going on. I see CollectorGuy ( talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is still spamming. I will document this at WT:WPSPAM if I get time later today.

As always, thanks again for your leadership at WPSPAM -- you are the backbone of our spam defenses! -- A. B. ^(talk) 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I have blacklisted the related sites and blocked the sockpuppeteer CollectorGuy. Found a few more sock accounts, seems the newest site is using an Iframe to feed the wackypackages2005 webpage (obvious attempt to subvert the blacklist). Here's the archive Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Aug#http:.2F.2Fspam.wackypackages2005.com__and_related-- Hu12 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your assessment of Diggernet's links to ifiction.org being spam. Full comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#User:Diggernet_.2F_http:.2F.2Fspam.ifiction.org — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Its not an assessment, its the result of multiple policy violations. You have a right to dissagree with Wikipedia policies, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies and none of them (from my understanding) confer a license to spam Wikipedia. I've replied on WikiProject Spam-- Hu12 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The above article you nominated for deletion has been speedy deleted and salted by an admin. Since the AFD wasn't closed I have done a "common sense" non-admin close myself. Thanks. Camaron1 | Chris 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. Good Job on the close, thanks ;)-- Hu12 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am currently working on the ClickTime page and will have it up in a few hours, please don't delete my article. Thanks, let me know if I am doing anything wrong.— Lilellieyo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC). reply

If you have a close connection to ClickTime you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.-- Hu12 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You undid edits I made to my own Talk page with no explanation why. I found this to be intrusive and rude. Since there is a built in archive of data I saw no reason not to be able to tidy up my talk page.

I think you could gain valuable experience from Sunray’s approach to wiki social protocol. Sunray has explained the archive method which I will now investigate. Please don't interfere with my talk page again unless you want to use it to talk to me or make constructive criticism.

I've start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks. -- naturalhomes 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community, not you. Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is considered vandalism WP:VAND. However, after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the warnings, is acceptable. Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings. -- Hu12 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Its apparent the removal, and subsequent debates regarding your WP:COI edits and personal website (naturalhomes.org [5] [6])being denied inclusion has become stressful for you. I assume your comment on "social protocol" is an overreaction. Please familiarize yourself with "Wikipedia protocol" on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It is my hope that you become a legitimate editor and contribute to wikipedia other than Adding naturalhomes.org links and self-promotion. Feel free to read the welcome page to learn more on contributing to Wikipedia.-- Hu12 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Your assumption is wrong. I have familiarized myself with "Wikipedia protocol" and it is apparent that you do not 'Respect other contributors' as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines regarding Sunray's edits in this discussion between you and Sunray, to wit:

" I have to add that I am concerned that you would go back on what you had said and (I thought) we had previously agreed to on the WikiProjectSpam talk page, to wit:

However, since the decision is now being discussed on the articles talk page, if it is found to be relevant, informative and should otherwise be included, a neutral and independent Wikipedia editor (other than Naturalhomes may add it..."

Your behaviour, as illustrated above, and your terse attitude towards my edit of my talk page, leads me to conclude that you are more concerned with your own status than the quality of Wiki articles. I accept that I could be wrong in my analysis of the chain of events. I think you could do well to reflect on your actions.

It is my hope that I become a better editor. Naturalhomes 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The addresses public info and are for the mansions of historic individuals who are no longer living. No addresses are listed for current residents. Thomas Paine1776 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for addressing the concern. I had a feeling that may have been the case;) Cheers-- Hu12 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Please don't put just a vote on Articles for Deletion, give a reason too. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?)} 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Er.. I nominated it, reason for deletion can be found in the nomination section-- Hu12 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Could you point me to a list of Wikipedia's blacklisted domains? I'm unaware of it (which isn't surprising -- there are many, many Wikipedia pages I'm still learning about after all this time). Thanks. -- Tenebrae 04:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Tenebrae, our global blacklist is found on Meta, here. When a domain is blocked, it is effectively blocked across all 700+ Wikimedia Foundation projects and all 3,000+ Wikia sites. In addition it is also blocked on hundreds of other, unrelated wikis that run on the same MediaWiki software. We have also implemented a local ( for en.wikipedia) blacklist which can be found here. If your having issues with a domain feel free to let me know, I'll be happy to help if I can.-- Hu12 04:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Did a bit of cleanup of the Zoomerang.com article that you had on articles for deletion. Probably still needs some work, but I'm not interested enough to do it. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Great work, looks much better. Kudo's on the effort. I'll abstain my vote, as I nominated it.-- Hu12 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey there. Just noticed you closed the AFD for this; I identified in the AFD that most of the article (everything after the first line of the second paragraph) is a direct copy-and-paste from an outside site. Would you recommend that I delete all of the copied information and make a note of such on the talk page? (My suggestion in the AFD was to delete it and allow for recreation with something other than a copyvio, for the record.) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thats the best course of action, delete all and revert it back to stub status, note the copyvio in edit summary. I'll add it to my watch list as well. Thanks for the note-- Hu12 05:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I know I have asked you before Hu, and I don't mean to bother you but please unprotect your talk page. Should an anon or new user want to contact you, say, asking why their nn-bio was deleted, they will currently find they can't talk to you. So please unprotect your talk page. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 05:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Most of my contribs deal with spammers/vandals, and Since warnings and discussions are on those pages, I reply there. I have over 2,047 talk pages on my watchlist (yes I counted), And 90%+ are WP:SPA spam/vandal accounts and IP's. I've added 5,278 comments to those user talk pages(yes I counted). My total edits before this post total 19,379 with the majority being spam fighting related. The nature of spammers and vandals motives and edits are not that of ordinary users. Spam fighters get continuously abused and assalted by spammers. My user and Talk page is a huge target for straw man arguments and vandalism, Past vandalism is the reason it was semi-protected in the first place. If I recall correctly there was one time where the protection came up on an anon IP's userpage, asside from your two posts. If discussion is that important it needs to take place on my talk page, the IP can simply register an account and wait the aloted time. I completely understand your point, dont misunderstand, however I am not comfortable with that now. I may consider it in the near future when I am not performing this needed, and all-around thankless task for Wikipedia. There's a reason why firefighters don't wear flip-flops, t-shirts and shorts on the job. Please understand that. thank you for your understanding.-- Hu12 07:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Certainly spammers and vandals do sometimes attack talk pages. However, the cost of needing to warn/block some spammers/vandals, which needs to be done anyway, is far outweighed by the inconvenience of waiting 4 days before being able to contact you. Your work is appreciated, and I understand that you may not be comfortable with allowing anyone to post on your talk page. However, policy does not allow for the permanent protection of user talk pages, and it has the potential to be very annoying to some anon users. In fact, the Protection Policy has no provisions for protecting user talk pages, other then "Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option", which it is in this case. Note it also says "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred [or] with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users." Keep in mind most anons are not spammers or vandals. Prodego ^talk 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

It was semi protected as a result of vandalism, not preemptive. The policy is clear, however I'm saddened by your persistance on the matter, as a fellow admin.:(-- Hu12 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks Hu. Understand that as an admin, I don't mean to persist, page protection is no obstacle to me. I care about this issue for all the anon users who might want to contact you. Sorry if I bothered you, and Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand. ;)-- Hu12 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you had struck out the !votes and all the text of the accompanying comments by editors with zero or few previous edits, in the AFD for this article. I have in the past tagged many such spa !votes in AFDs. Is there anything in the AFD guidelines which allows striking out !votes and the reasons given, or did it just seem like a good idea at the moment? Sometimes new editors join Wikipedia and become productive contributors after they came here due to interest in a particular AFD. Having their vote and reasons struck out seems to be contrary to WP:BITE when adding a spa tag is sufficient to alert the closing admin, so their !vote can be discounted. At the same time, people interested in a particular topic have in fact often brought in facts and sources which inform all participants, and the striking through basically says that nothing they say may be heard or considered. I like the idea of allowing them "voice but not vote" in the AFD process, as long as their contributions are reasoned and not spam off-topic or attacks. Would you please consider undoing the strikeouts, and just leaving spa tags? Thanks. Edison 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Not sure why this is an issue. Why would I undo the strikeouts? The debate is not a vote. I was in the process of closing the afd (closing admin) and the abundance of redlink usernames and IPs which have made few or no other edits outside this topic raised serious concern and were struck, not deleted. Hence why I relisted the debate. It is not uncommon for closing admins to strike entries, to show others the discussion comments considered or discounted. Sock puppets and anon IP's should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists, its apparent ths was the case. Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations are usualy discounted, conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. Also the reason for the "not a ballot" tag was placed.-- Hu12 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

If you had actually closed it rather than relisting it, I suppose the strikeouts would not have the undesired effect of making it hard for other editors to see what the newbies had to say. When you reelisted, you could have removed the strikeouts to give voice to the newbies (if not !vote). I have not seen an AFD at Deletion Review with strikeouts of spa comments. Is that a common practice? I would find it easier to take a sheet of paper and list the various keep, delete, and discounted positions. Quicker that adding the html code for strikeouts, and does not have the unintentional effect of looking like censorship. I suggested undoing the strikeouts because it was an ongoing AFD, not a closed one, and because it does not seem to be in accord with past practice. (I could be wrong). This was an odd one, because there were spas on both sides. Usuallty canvassing only brings in a herd from one side. Thanks for your good efforts. Edison 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm watching this afd closely and it appears consensus is emerging after the second relisting, consensus being the most important factor. Strikeouts won't be an issue for the closing admin. I apreciate the response:)-- Hu12 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Re your reversion: [7]. This is getting to be a PITA. AGENT 7 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who created this and various other unreferenced articles about Salamis places and people, got a couple of blocks for removing cleanup and unref tags. Now he appears to be acting through variety of IP sockpuppets and repeatedly doing this on all of the articles he created. I can't do the cleanup and referencing - it needs someone who can read Greek sources - but they need tagging. Can anything be done? I tried asking for semiprotection [8] but they didn't consider it bad enough a problem. Gordonofcartoon 11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice research! That's an amazing bit of scam-artistry! We definitely need to clarify and consolidate the guidelines on this subject, I've seen quite a bit of abuse too. But your example is wild! Dreadstar † 07:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you recently reverted some changes to this article by user Skyscraper Source - see here. I agree that since the user has only edited this one page and included some "ad-speak" in their changes, it looks like a clear case of conflict of interest. However, I happen to think that some of what Skyscraper Source wrote is a valuable addition to the article. If I was to revert some of your change to add what I thought was valuable, would you then accuse me of a conflict of interest, even though I have no connection to the website? Astronaut 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I do have reservations on the use of self referencing (skyscraperpage.com). As long as Neutrality is kept and it's not a link farm, I have no issue.-- Hu12 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Done. Feel free to come by and review my edits. Astronaut 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I did some further trimmmig in order to conform to the encyclopedia. My edits were not intended to be a criticism of your edits, only colaborative. ;)-- Hu12 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh!! I'm surprised you trimmed so much. Why do you feel the other features and statistics should not be in the article at all - both sections were in the article, but with much less detail, before Skyscraper Source even made their edits? As I said earlier, I was hoping to add some of what Skyscraper Source had added to improve the information presented in the article, whilst avoiding the POV, link farm and self-referencing issues you mentioned. Astronaut 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia articles should not exist to describe the nature, appearance, or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner. Promotional content such as "features and statistics fail to comply with WP:NOT. Remember, this is an encyclopedia.-- Hu12 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

In my view, to say a website has a forum and sells posters is hardly "promotional content" or unencyclopedic. The mention of forums and statistics (as well as the references to the use of SkyscraperPage by other media) were used to establish impact and significance in an encyclopedic manner as per WP:NOT#INTERNET. Please can you point out specifically which parts of WP:NOT the article failed to comply with. Astronaut 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The website's achievements awards, ect. will establish impact and significance in an encyclopedic manner, Not the number of active enthusiast in the forums or number of Posters sold. Besides, the database, diagrams are all mentioned and cited. there's even a link to the forum. Wikipedia is WP:SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.-- Hu12 19:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Having reviewed the changes to the article since 17 Aug, and my own thoughts during this discussion, I give up. Maybe I was defending the site statistics simply because other site articles have statistics, I guess we could do without the posters, and I suppose the presence of a forum is implied by the link to it (although I was under the impression that links to forums are discouraged by Wikipedia MOS). However, I still disagree with you, and think I was adding useful information in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia policies.

That said, I have a few observations: In quoting WP:NOT#INTERNET you omitted the word "only" (as in "...articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance, or services...) therefore giving a false impression of the policy's meaning. The site statistics were in the version you reverted Skyscraper Source's changes to. And the number of posters sold was never mentioned, only the fact that the posters were sold (surely that's some kind of achievement).

But, as I said, I have no connection to the website; and as I have no desire for an edit war and wish to remain civil, I'll leave it as it is. Thank you for your valuable insights.

Astronaut 20:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for contacting me on my page. JoshuaZ and I were in agreement about the reversion you observed. As JoshuaZ is an administrator and maintains an interest in the case I ask you to contact him with any question you have about it. I do not use my page for such discussion, as the header announces. That is the reason I reply here on your page. Thank you for reading. Cuddlyable3 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am aware, thank you for the comment. However, there does seem to be a broader issue with your edits. You may wish to join in on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk_page_blanking -- Hu12 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You archive my page with a notice "archiving obvious attempts to hide warnings" - is that childishly stupid or what? Nothing is hidden in Wikipedia, can't you understand that? I believe I shall make a special point from now on of keeping your posts off my page. Cuddlyable3 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to restore or archive content that an editor has removed from their user talkpage... as you can see from the response above it isn't generally a welcome act.-- Isotope23 ^talk 14:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Who do you contend has a conflict of interest? Pat1425's edits have all been reverted. Or is the creator affiliated with Zogby? THF 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Didn't realize all of Pat1425's edits were reverted, not sure about the creator I see no COI with Popkultur-- Hu12 04:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been corrected on the first point, though the current article doesn't appear to push Syring's point of view. THF 04:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

;)-- Hu12 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Look like we both are deleting bollywood gate links :P. Anyways this image :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mainhoon_header_01.jpg is referring to bollywood gate. This license of that image appears to be a fake. Thank you. Hope we can work together. -- SkyWalker 11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. Its appears to be one part of a massive bollywoodgate.com campaign, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.bollywoodgate.com-- Hu12 11:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem :). I think it best we add that site to blacklist. Because pretty soon the site will be readded again. Also do check out the image on the top. -- SkyWalker 11:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

This removal of My.BarackObama.com from List of social networking websites was uncalled for. The AfD discussion is ongoing with a clear consensus to keep, and de-linking the article elsewhere because you do not support its keeping seems unnecessary. Italia ^vivi 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

List of social networking websites requires a site be notable for inclusion to the list;

“

Only place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not social networking sites will be removed..

”

Because the article you wish to include currently has its notability questioned and the fact that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My.BarackObama.com has only recently begun, I'll suggest waiting until consensus determines it notable before re-adding any more. Untill that time, after the discussion is closed, feel free to add it back. Its not my opinion that determinines inclusion at List of social networking websites, its notability.-- Hu12 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

There are seven editors at the AfD who assert the article to be in full compliance with the notability guidelines stated at WP:WEB. Please cease pre-empting a deletion discussion's outcome by de-linking it elsewhere. Italia ^vivi 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You were asked to wait until the AFD consensus determines it notable before re-adding. My crystall ball is currently in the shop undergoing repairs, however yours clearly discounts any potential for a redirect, deletion or merge? The article is a day old, within a half hour of its creation it was brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My.BarackObama.com. Feel free to add the site after consensus has been reached, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball-- Hu12 05:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure who you think you are, but no. You don't get to pre-empt AfD debates, sorry. Italia ^vivi 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll just jump in here and say that Italiavivi did not violate 3RR on the AfD (as you suggested on the admin noticeboard). He or she posted it once and reverted 3 times. It's only after three that actions are generally taken. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I was not clear in the initial statement, I've clarified. Thanks.;)

Thanks for catching this oversigh^{t [9]} on my part and fixing it. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I acknowledge your experience, but i think that when an article asserts national awards, as does Alan Haskvitz that makes it very clearly an assertion of notability. If the awards don't seem adequate for actual notability, wouldnt prod or afd be the better way to go? (I declined the speedy) DGG ( talk) 04:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Was using VandalProof when i tagged it, thanks for correcting. you are correct;)-- Hu12 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Dave the Slave. I do not think that Dave the Slave fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because asserts notability as his pottery is in the Smithsonian. I request that you consider not re-tagging Dave the Slave for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{ prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD . Carlossuarez46 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you're about the only admin who edits the page so I just wanted to say thanks for attending to requests so quickly. -- SiobhanHansa 01:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure where to respond to this nonsense of being labelled a spammer. How is adding a link to a site that is dedicated to the subject of ooxml to the ooxml wiki-articale spam? For people who are interesting in the criticism of ooxml this is a valuable resource. If you want to discuss NPOV or other objections then fine but to label me a spammer is lazy administration. It seems gone are the days of 'being bold' , my first impression is walk lightly and avoid the egos. Kaern 11:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)— Kaern ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC). reply

You had added the pettition 3 times 10:21, 29 August 2007 10:27, 29 August 2007 10:51, 29 August 2007 under the IP 84.64.233.164, prior to creating your current the account Kaern @ 10:54, 29 August 2007, which you added it a fourth time. Unfortunatly the link is not a resource about the subject. I'd suggest discussing it on the articles talkpage. thanks.-- Hu12 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove redlinks for no reason, as you did on breakcore. -- intgr  ^#%@! 08:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Unfortunatly excessive redlinks are discouraged in the style guide WP:REDLINK note Wikipedia:Redlinks within reason, Bluelinks within context. Always evaluate whether or not a red link is linking to a page that actually needs creation, in the case those examples most likey dont, in there current context. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context-- Hu12 08:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's why I complained: As far as I can tell, the removed links were artists and record companies that were instrumental to the creation of the genre; if that is the case, I do think that they're relevant (although I'm no expert on the subject). You removed artists that happened to be redlinks while leaving all the bluelinks that were in the exact same context, so it appeared that you were removing them just for the sole reason that they're redlinks. -- intgr  ^#%@! 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I've addd a cleanup tag. I understand your point in restoring one or two, however the articles is more links than context. link density is an issue, linking can be necessary sometimes to facilitate understanding, however, in this case red linking fails this goal. Breakcore desperately needs references and citations to establishing its notability. The redlinks however, are to the non notable artists and from what I've been able to tell, won't pass WP:BIO for inclusion. Relevant connections to the subjects of other articles will help readers to understand the current article more fully, linking to Low value non existant items fail that goal.-- Hu12 09:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply

If you have a good reason to believe that these artists are not notable then feel free to revert; I don't feel very strongly about it. -- intgr  ^#%@! 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I would hope they some day would become articles, but a cursory check shows that unlikely. We can leave them, I was just explaining my rationale. ;)-- Hu12 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I'm not sure if there's something underhanded going on, but it looks as though there might be, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. CuddlyAble3, immediately after the expiry of his latest block for disruptive and uncivil behaviour, seems to have deleted his user page while leaving his talk page up (such as it is; he continues to delete warnings and behavioural reminders). Is this kosher? It looks to me as if he's trying to conceal his behavioural problems, and the warnings he's received for them, from those who encounter his name in signed comments, etc. -- Scheinwerfermann 14:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note, Scheinwerfermann. He can delete warnings on his userpage per policy if he choses. I feel similar to how you do, however. Several admins including my self are aware of past behavior, and I'm glad other's such as your self are watching. It's fine. unless he acts up again there is no need for concern at the moment. Thanks-- Hu12 14:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply. I may not have made myself clear (or I might've, in which case please excuse my repetition). My concern isn't so much with his habitual deletion of warnings from his userpage, but more his having deleted his userpage and left his talk page intact, thus making it very difficult for any but the most determined to access his talk page. -- Scheinwerfermann 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't believe he ever had a userpage. The deletion log's confirm this. You should be able to access his/her talk page throught the tabs at the top, even if there isn.t a main page.-- Hu12 14:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You're right, he never had anything on his userpage...but the page did exist. It exists again now, as it seems. At the time I raised my eyebrow, it did not exist (putting in User:Cuddlyable3 gave you a "No such page, but you can create it if you like" editing window.) Whatever was causing it, the empty placeholder page seems to be back. *shrug* -- Scheinwerfermann 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

That would be strange, even if the page was blanked, it would not show up as red, and would have a history.-- Hu12 16:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, Can you check this user page User:Helenasmith. I have no idea if this should be speedy delete or to leave as is. -- SkyWalker 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Made an edit to it. If it comes back it should be speedied. Evidently its an WP:SPA for whomever the bio was about. I took a softer approach, however deletion would be warrented per WP:NOT, regardless. Good catch-- Hu12 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Now the user page looks better. :P.-- SkyWalker 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems like we have two skywalkers here in wikipedia or more. Is there anything admins can do regarding this?. People should not confuse with or vice-versa. This is user i was talking about User:Skywalker. Anyhelp would be appreciated. -- SkyWalker 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

No doubt there will be name variations, not uncommon. The account User:Skywalker hasn't been active for over a year and seems to be a WP:SPA only account. High probability it won't be used again. Unfortunatly, accounts with contributions such as this, cannot be deleted since this would allow another user to create the account.-- Hu12 12:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Why the editing of my user-page? The Rypcord. 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord ( talk • contribs)

Appears you were the victim of a cruel prank, and did not appear to be constructive. CBenoit128 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added 5 barnstars. Account was created 16:16 and posted them at 16:17, and has no other edits other than to your page. have you contacted CBenoit128. Are you familiar with this account?-- Hu12 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

No, never heard of him before or anything. So it was just a joke? The Rypcord. 16:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord ( talk • contribs)

As I'm sure you certainly deseve recognition for you work on the project, the person you need to be asking about that is CBenoit128. I would think a new account posting 5 awards within a minute of account creation is suspect. It's not like you created the account, that would be silly-- Hu12 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

...or flood editor talk pages with unfounded threats, right? I'm sorry, but I don't know what else to think of it. Looking at your edit history, you have kept removing any references to the NoOOXML campaign during the past few weeks from any articles you come across, calling editors that add them "spammers", and reporting the site on spam notice boards. Which is justified provided the web site does fit that label, although any evidence of that... Quite frankly, I would be grateful to see the evidence, because I haven't seen any as of yet. But, at the same time you happen to overlook a 3RR violation happening just arm's length away. I'm not sure if you're aware of that, but the template you put on my talk page contains a link to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest article and there's something ironic about that and the observations I made above. 80.233.255.7 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Accounts
Pieterh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84.64.233.164 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Kaern ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.40.2.171 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.48.122.75 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Adi86 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.233.255.7 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please do not create articles or continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your accounts 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" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see the welcome page and Wikipedia:Civility. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote noooxml.org right? -- Hu12 17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

That's a nice template, but you obviously haven't done your home work. My anonymous Wikipedia contributions date back to July, 2006 from this very IP and I used to contribute from an account registered on December, 2005. Only about 10 of the most recent edits are related to OOXML. Thanks for proving my point and failing to answer any of the concerns I raised. 80.233.255.7 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The link noooxml.org is not appropriate as it advertises a pettition rather than a resource about the subject. "Help your national board say "NO" to OOXML". Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise.-- Hu12 17:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

These pages are considered Cruft and not notable for Wikipedia? After seeing the history of Star Wars and Wookieepedia articles the deletion doesn't surprise me. The problem is CCP doesn't have an official Wiki for EVE Online and the best wiki I can find Eve-Wiki is being opposed by entrenched interests even though external wiki's of this sort are on 48 of 148 MMORPG articles and many featured gaming articles like Halo 2. Any help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. EVE Online is in the top 10 most popular MMORPG's with typically 25,000 people logged in at most times of the day. Alatari 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Why did you delete external links to the Smithsonian Institution archives of Amerian art in the Hans Hofmann and Burgoyne Diller articles? MdArtLover 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I see that you called the links spam, but they don't fit any legitimate definition of spam. MdArtLover 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

They were spamm(ed) see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwww.aaa.si.edu-- Hu12 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't you think that, in an article about Hans Hofmann, a link to the files on Hofmann at Smithsonian Intitution's archives on American art is legitimate and useful? Why should we care if it was added automatically? MdArtLover 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

If you want to add it to the article that fine, as far as why we should care, see WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI-- Hu12 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Why is it not OK for this other person to have added it to many articles by some automatic means, when wikipedians themselves make frequent use of so-called "bots" for the same purpose: to make useful changes to a large number of articles which would be tediously repetitious and time-consuming if done without this aid? Why isn't that "spamming"? What you're doing is destructive; it made the articles poorer than you found them. If the "standards" support your actions then the standards are irrational. The SI is a perfectly legitimate public institution, and links to its art resources cannot possibly be anything but helpful. MdArtLover 21:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand what your saying, however from the point of Wikipedia its not OK. Bots are approved by wikipedia for whatever task they were ok'd to do(whatever it is). Bots not approved are blocked on sight. Spamming is against policy. Spamming against policy, from an account that is associated with the content being spammed, is even worse. please review the relevent policies. It doesn't matter, being from SI, doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. -- Hu12 21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hiya Hu12, FYI a user who obviously has been following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http://www.aaa.si.edu has contacted me claiming that your block of User:Aaa intern has blocked the entire Smithsonian Institution from editing. I think he was trying to garner some sort of sympathy, but for the record, I have no quarrel with you--just passing along the info, in case s/he really is blocked and was simply trying to inform someone. Thanks and keep up the vandal fighting. Katr67 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. Recieved the email also. It wasn't an IP block as the email claims, those with existing accounts are not affected, just User:Aaa intern. This individual obviously attempted to re-register, during blocks account creation is blocked. This block also does not affect User:Aaa intern's ability to edit or discuss on his/her own account talk page. If User:Aaa intern wish's to make useful contributions, he/she is welcome to come back after the 24 hr block expires. However this account seems to be a WP:SPA Role account which is a violation of Help:Username#Sharing_accounts. "Role accounts for the purposes of conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia are strongly discouraged and will be blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines."-- Hu12 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. MrDarwin 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Here is a list of all IP's reg. to Smithsonian that have edited on wikipedia, none are currently blocked.

160.111.254.11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.134.20 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.99 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.74 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.98 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.113 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.231 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.60.31 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.110.110 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.81 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.84.82 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.111.50 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.23 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.112.60 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.81 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.29 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.6.105 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.157 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.131 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.254.16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.146.202 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.80.88 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.114 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.21.51 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
-- Hu12 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. For the reasons I gave at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#linkspamming new editor??, I ventured to unblock this user. I've left a message on User talk:Aaa intern requesting that the user voluntarily refrain from adding further links to Smithsonian Institution web sites pending further discussion. I understand you are an experienced spam-fighter; I am a fairly new administrator; this is the first time I have ever unblocked a user, and I hope I have not been too forward. I believe that the user involved, while possibly having an inappropriate username, is not spamming as defined by WP:SPAM because the material added is not promotional in nature. If you elect to re-block this user, I will not interfere further. Best, -- Shirahadasha 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I have no intention of re-blocking unless the behavior continues. Dissagreement doesn't mean disrespect, and I respect the decision. Might have wanted to wait for the user to request the unblock, as there have 4 different talk page discussions, and no input by the subject. Usualy spam only WP:SPA accounts spam untill they're blocked, get another account, get another account ect. We really needed to have the input from this user on the situation, as administrators, in order to determine the rationale for unblocking. 77 links in less than 2 hours, irregardless of the site being spammed, is spam.-- Hu12 03:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Yesterday you classified Overstock.com "spammers" as "naughty" before deleting what appeared to be a total of four instances of the link from what I understand to be Wikipedia's 1.5-million articles.

Of those four:

1. Was buried in someone's personal userpage sandbox and not likely intended to be followed by anybody.
2. Pointed to the company's investor relations site on the article of a former member of the Overstock.com board of directors.
3. Appeared on the article of the company's CEO.
4. Looks like a link to a CD placed there five months ago by a fan on the band's article.

You're the spam expert here, so I'll defer to your judgement. But I'd love to understand how the above four links qualify as "spam" and exactly where the "naughty" is. -- The So-Called Blogger 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

1)obvious vandalism to a personal page 2) dead link 3) Added wikilink 4) Inapropriate sales link. My edits would appear to be unrelated to any larger problem being discussed on the link provided above. -- Hu12 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. But can you point me to the examples of spamming that you originally found to be "naughty"? Thanks. -- The So-Called Blogger 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

While I've been waiting for your reply, I did some checking but have yet to find any of the naughtiness you alluded to. Can you give me any direction? Or maybe recommend someone else to ask? Thanks! -- The So-Called Blogger 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Herbythyme is the backbone of meta's spam work these days. He left me a note on my meta talk page asking whether I thought squidoo should be blacklisted on meta. I told him you knew a lot more about this one than I did -- please consider yourself invited to chip in at meta:User talk:A. B.#Squidoo req if you feel so inclined. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Really Great for all your contributions in controlling spamming. I am here to know the reason for spamming my websites. I feel you have not even opened the website and its contents before even judging whether the website is supposed to be in the spam list or not. For example you have made the website http://www.vlsichipdesign.com as a spam website. I am 10 year experienced chip design Engineer and in the website maintains all the issues/concepts related to ASIC and VLSI and i placed this in the external links column specific to ASIC and VLSI postings only. Please do let me know the reason why did you named this as spam website. Please in future without studying what the website is targetting for please take the supervisory control and use it in a wrong note in naming it as a spam-website. I request you to remove the spam-link from my website . The website is for a good cause. If you know ASIC design/VLSI chip design and if you still feel that the website of mine as a spam please contact me. I request you to remove the spam in corresponding adsense sites. Thanks for the support. In case if this is not a right forum to discuss this please do reply me with the right place topost it(i am an amateur in Wikipedia).Praise the Lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.245.198 ( talk) 09:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I am (slowly) trying to gather and compile an essay on the single purpose accounts that add external links, which, after removal are overruled as 'they are good and on topic links, I don't understand why this is considered spam'. Apparently these removals (and other accounts overriding the removals) give much aggravation. May I invite you to help me (re)writing the points (both in favour and against), and further compile this document? I have it here for the moment: User:Beetstra/Archivists. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I have now done some work on the essay and am thinking about moving it to the wikipedia namespace. Would like to hear some input from you (and maybe you have a proper suggestion for a name). Hope to hear from you. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

please can you delete your comments from my page, thanks.-- Sunderland06 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

sorry both personal attacks and Bad-faith placing of deletion tags or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria is vandalism.-- Hu12 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry but can you please delete your comments i will not do it again -- Sunderland06 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you please delete this page because it is spelt incorrectly, thanks -- Sunderland06 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

 Done Author request-- Hu12 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you good friend -- Sunderland06 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You have deleted the wrong page it was the Easington Community Science Collage can you reinstate the correct one which is EASINGTON COMMUNITY SCIENCE COLLEGE thanks -- Sunderland06 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Easington Community Science College was never deleted, however I restored the misspelled one with a redirect.-- Hu12 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

OK Thanks -- Sunderland06 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I declined speedy on him; he plays for a English premiership team - meets WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

ok , so he infact plays. There were issues with some articles created, that never actually played and saw no refference to that effect. thanks-- Hu12 20:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

So i can remove the warning on his page, cheaz -- Sunderland06 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Users are free to remove warnings or anything else they want to from their talkpage. Forcing them to keep warnings on their talkpage is considered harassment. -- Carnildo 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Removing vandalism and warning a user isn't harassment. Not sure of your involvement but perhaps you'd prefer me to block the user for the violations instead? I think NPA [10] and Abuse of tags [11] [12] against User talk:Jaranda was uncalled for and clearly harassment. warnings offer a softer approach than banning. Feel free to remove them, however archiving is preffered-- Hu12 22:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Removing vandalism and warning the user isn't harassment. Forcing them to keep the warnings on their talkpage is. -- Carnildo 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

So does that mean i can delete the warnings from my page then, thanks -- Sunderland06 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You may archive them see Help:Archiving a talk page-- Hu12 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You can also delete them outright, but archiving is preferred. -- Carnildo 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You can give them as a gift to Carnildo.., no you really can't. LOL ;)-- Hu12 19:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

What is an easy way to get an award? I have made a School page updated the kazakhstan national football team and updated alot of sportman pages Can i get an award from them. -- Sunderland06 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

A place to start is Wikipedia:Awards. Awards are usualy given to you by other wikipedians in recognition of hard work, due diligence ect. Wikipedia:Service awards is intended to be given to yourself, however they have requirements.-- Hu12 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Will editing the kazakhstan national football team help? -- Sunderland06 20:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I would first focus on your WP:CIVIL issues with User:Jaranda. You cant vandalize or call people names, especialy those with whom you edit alogn side with. Those with whom you edit alogn side with are the ones most likely to give you an Award, as they see you contributions. You have one edit to kazakhstan national football team ^[13], I'll assume your joking asking that question. After what you did to a fellow editor yesterday, feel awarded you were not blocked.-- Hu12 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

File:Wikipedia book.jpg

Hu12, looking at Wikipedia:Service awards, I see you've been overly modest; by edit count you would now be a Lord High Tutnum, however, without the longevity in months, you're still a Grognard Extraordinary!

Sunderland06, you're walking in big footsteps; that football team needs your help -- go for it.

-- A. B. ^(talk) 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh... didn't realize I had such a large editing problem. I hope the 1937 Wikipedia First Edition has alot of pictures, I'm tired of reading..LOL. Thanks A. B.! -- Hu12 20:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI, Videmus Omnia and I are developing a big list:

• User:A. B./Sandbox16

Discussion:

• User talk:A. B.#Looking for advice

I'll let you know when we've got more done. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I See. Let me know...-- Hu12 15:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you tell me if you know how to get that banner that says if youre online. -- Sunderland06 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hu, WP:DTTR. That's just pouring oil on the flame. Italiavivi says those IPs aren't his/hers. If you don't believe him/her, feel free to say so - I'm long past assuming that everything s/he says is true - but using the template seems an unnecessary insult. That's a line I'm trying hard not to cross no matter how annoyed I get with him/her. -- Zsero 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Your repeatedly attributing an entire IP range from a large ISP to myself, including years-old IP addresses from random locations and edits which are clearly not mine, is harassment. These IPs are not mine, and I will seek recourse over your insistence of this unsubstantiated attribution. Italia ^vivi 07:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the threats and personal attack!-- Hu12 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring ( [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Italiavivi. While removal of content from RFCs is generally frowned upon, there is no exception to edit warring rules to reverse it... and any prohibitions against such removals would apply equally to your own removal of the other party's comments, which initiated the dispute. -- CBD 12:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Hu thought he was doing the right thing, and now realizes he should have done it differently. Resolved, no need for the block to continue. Request handled by: Prodego talk 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Supposing for the moment that statement at the bottom of the RFC page made your removals 'correct' (though it says that discussion should be held on the talk page rather than removed to there, is seldom followed in my experience, and would make it more of a 'request for votes' than 'request for comments')... it wouldn't change the fact that you were edit warring. If a user makes an obviously biased POV edit and you revert it that is 'correct' on one level, but doing so repeatedly will get you blocked for 3RR. When there is a dispute, people are supposed to stop and try to work it out reasonably rather than just edit warring back and forth without any discussion. I don't agree that your actions here were entirely 'correct' (e.g. removing his objections to the listing of IP addresses, repeatedly restoring IP addresses whose inclusion was IMO questionable, twice removing the complaints that evidence about him calling someone a WP:DICK was false without responding to them), but even if you believe they absolutely were... it was still clearly edit warring. The proper course would have been to stop and discuss the matters with him rather than simply reverting and removing repeatedly.

Just commenting on why I will not remove this block myself. If another admin disagrees with my reasoning I've no problem with them unblocking. You undoubtedly thought you were 'doing the right thing', but I don't agree and don't think that's what policy allows. -- CBD 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I really don't agree with you here CBD. Italiavivi's behavior was disruptive to the RFC. There is an area for his own defense and it's fairly clear where it belongs. What Italiavivi was doing bordered on vandalism. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comments were moved to the talk page, as others had done, including Italiavivi per the RFC instruction [21] [22] [23]. I had no reason to believe this was not the right thing to do. I have no motive or need to 'mute' comments from that user. The whole purpose of the RFC was in hope that Italiavivi change his disruptive path through community input. While we may dissagree CBD, I do respect you for explaining your reasoning. thanks-- Hu12 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Mega-Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Hu12 for 24X7 work getting spam out of Wikipedia and keeping it out. -- A. B. (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

WOW...that makes my day! thanks A. B.-- Hu12 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Check out the Legal OnRamp page. The originator of the page, Paul Lippe, is the chief executive of the company (see here [24]). I believe this is a spammy problem that needs addressing. I also reckon The Lawyer page fails the notability criteria. What do you think? Solicitor1 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Please take a serious look at the above. Thanks. Smallbones 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

How do you source an infobox, thanks. -- Sunderland06 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Hu12, I had added some links to the Dermatology photo library Dermnet.com and I think they may have been deleted. Here is a brief overview.

Dermnet.com is an open access and free website that contains thousands of high quality images demonstrating skin diseases. It is used by many medical schools to teach students about these skin conditions and it is often used as a picture resource by various medical journals to demonstrate a particular condition. It is also very useful for the general public and readers of Wikipedia to see this information as they learn about a particular disease. I am a board certified dermatologist, an adjunct professor of dermatology at Dartmouth College and I have written many books on the subject of dermatology.

I would like to contribute to Wikipedia. Since I am new at this, I may have made a mistake. Would you please instruct me on how to add these links and other information to Wikipedia so it will not be deleted.

I will also list some citations for your review:

Medical schools and websites: University of Iowa: http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/hardin/md/dermnet/index.html

National Library for Health: http://www.library.nhs.uk/skin/ViewResource.aspx?resID=67330

Medical Journals: Journal of the American American Academy of Dermatology: World Wide Web open access, educational dermatology clinical images: Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages e81-e85

Human Papillomaviruses and Genital Disease (published by Elsiver): Dermatologic Clinics, Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 157-165 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasHabifMD ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI: still spamming:

• Special:Contributions/125.163.73.35
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug#http://spam.yinyanghouse.com and http://spam.12stringblues.com

Blacklist?
-- A. B. ^(talk) 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, you've removed the external link to www.complexevents.com which points to the website run by Prof. Emiritus David Luckham who authored the book "The Power of Events" amd is considered by many to be one of the founding fathers of this computing paradigm. The website is a non-profit website and acts as the industries unofficial source of articles, use cases, and reference architectures. I believe it is a valid external link. Why has this link been removed? I'll wait for your response before putting it back in. Bardcom 07:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Appears to be a blog that comments on applications and products, and does not comply with WP:EL. It doesn't matter--being nonprofit, these sites are often trying to sell something even if the business is organized as a nonprofit. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites, ie nonprofit, for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote applications and products are not.-- Hu12 10:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, it's not a blog at all. It is an aggregator website that posts articles from all different sources, each article having relevance to Complex Event Processing. It is run by Prof. David Luckham who is Professor Emiritus of Stanford University (and he just gave a keynote speach on event processing at the inaugral Gartner Event in Florida last week), and is a neutral. He wrote the book in 1999 that many would say spawned the technology/industry (The Power of Events, which is also referenced in the wikipedia article). The website also carries use cases and reference architectures from many vendors, and links to many academic projects. In a way, it's the equivalent of the Terry Pratchett page referencing Terry's own Discworld page, etc..... Bardcom 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Aggregated results pages also are not allowed under WP:EL, sorry.-- Hu12 16:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It's probably not correct to call it an aggregated website either. And it's not really a blog so much either, although he often comments on stuff. I would descibe the website as the primary reference site for CEP. Prof. Luckham monitors the CEP universe and posts articles, opinions, use cases, reference architectures, etc. Search for "Complex Event Processing" in Google. Every blog related to CEP references Prof Luckhams site. He is the foremost authority on the subject on the planet and regarded as the Grandfather of CEP. Contrary to your initial comment, the site is not trying to sell anything, and promotes the concepts and ideas of Complex Event Processing - it is not there to promote applications and products, but uses the use cases to educate on how CEP can be used, and how it can be valuable, and what other people are using CEP for, etc. So the remaining question relates to whether Prof Luckham is using Wikipedia to promote or advertise the site. He is not. I have no affiliation to Prof Luckham, but I, and many others in the CEP industry (reference: every blog links to it), and the search-engine population at large (reference: Google) regard www.complexevents.com as the primary source of neutral information on the subject. There is no other website like it - hence everyone (universities, analysts, magazine articles, vendors) references it. The reason I want to see it included as an external link is because it's a single website you can go to and get educated from the GrandDaddy himself. Bardcom 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, still awaiting a response. In the meantime, I've added the link back in. According to WP:EL, this link is valid. The sites contains neutral and accurate material at an amount of detail that is not practical to include in a wikipedia page, as well links to relevant news, articles, etc, on the subject of CEP. Your assertion that the website exists to promote products and services is not true, it does not. It's also not an aggregated *results* page - I described it as an aggregator website of sorts because it includes industry articles and documents from many sources - this is not the same as an aggregated *results* website. It also qualifies even if it is viewed as a blog, since Prof Luckham is the foremost recognised authority on the subject. Bardcom 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it may be relevant or worthy of mention in an article about Prof Luckham, however outside of that it does not meet the External links policy for inclusion. It has been removed.-- Hu12 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Please state your reasons rather than blindly removing the link. I have tried to engage with you for an explanation, and you seem content to continue to invoke an explanation of "I am right, you are wrong, here's a link to the Wikipedia Policies". You are being disrespectful to the spirit of Wikipedia, and the time and effort I have put into correcting this article. I have read the policies and the link is not in breach. That is my opinion, and I have explained it at great length. You have a different opinion which you continue to not explain at all.

You are not clearly explaining why you continue to remove this link, and why it breaches policy. To date your reasons have been:

"Appears to be a blog that comments on applications and products". This is not true - I've just checked the most recent posting and none on the front page promotes a product or application. Another reason you gave is "Links to sites, ie nonprofit, for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote applications and products are not <allowed>" - this website does not exist to promote applications and products - it is a neutral site and does not promote any products.

You then said "Aggregated results websites are not allowed". It is clear that it is not an aggregated *results* website.

Your most recent reply doesn't even attempt to address any of the points I raise. You merely state "it does not meet the External links policy for inclusion". Which part please? I have pointed to several reasons why it is justified for inclusion.

I await your response. In the meantime, I've reversed your undo based on your lack of explanation and lack of clearly pointing out where in External links policy it does not comply, in contrast to my continual pointing out why it does qualify. In contrast, I believe there are overwhelming reasons for inclusion as every article on the website is relevant to CEP (Further Reading?). That's fair I think. My opinion is given as a neutral topic expert with no links to Prof Luckham or his website.

Bardcom 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you've removed the link again. Your behaviour and lack of explanation or reasoning is astonishing. Your comment is editted with "Aggregated results website no allowed". It clearly is not. I have initiated a vote on the talk page, as per Wikipedia policy. I've replaced the link until the result of the vote. Let's see what the greater topic expert community decides Bardcom 17:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I have responded, and its a blog aggregated results page. Its not difficult to see this clearly violates External links policy. -- Hu12 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for responding, but you are mistakingly categorising this website as a blog aggregated results page. Please consider that it also contains [http:// complexevents.com/?p=149 use cases], [http:// complexevents.com/?p=14 research papers], the (latest version of the) Event Processing Technical Society [http:// complexevents.com/?cat=15 Glossary of Event Processing Terms], links to [http:// complexevents.com/?p=57 Rule Languages], and lots more too! All of this material is hosted and downloadable directly from the website. Perhaps you are basing your opinion solely on the News section, which is often busy (especially recently, since the latest EPTS meeting was held on Sept 17th, and Gartners inaugral conference on Event Processing was held on Sept 19th).

In addition, I have requested the page is locked for a period of one week until this edit war has been resolved. Hopefully the CEP community will decide by voting one way or another. I have posted a message to the Yahoo group CEP-Interest to encourage people to voice an opinion. Bardcom 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I hope you didn't post a request outside wikipedia? if so please link to it. The Idea is for established Wikipedia editors with knowlege of policy and practice to reach consensus, its not a vote in numbers. There have been many cases where soliciting "off wiki" ends up getting the url blacklisted. I don't think that is what any one wants. Just so you know I am an Administrator, so requesting page protection does little but keep non admins from contributing meaniful content to the article.-- Hu12 18:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It is a request that went outside Wikipedia. And I didn't realize you were an administrator - I didn't even know that Wikipedia had official administrators (makes sense though). The reason I posted is because I recall that the Wikipedia article was discussed previously on this newgroup, and the original creator of the Wikipedia article also created the CEP-Interest newgroup on Yahoo. The message is posted here. I tried to keep the message neutral - I didn't call for a big resounding Yes vote for example. I was attempting to reach out to Topic Experts for their opinion and to vote. Bardcom 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. As you seem to be one of the biggest antispam editors around (by the way, thank you for the invitation you left on my talk page, sorry I never officially joined the project, though I try to do my part), I want to know what you think of that article. Seems like one long list of spam to me. The excuse for all those external links on the talk page is that those are reference links which are permitted, but I don't think they qualify, as all those one-click hosters' notability is not established by reliable secondary sources. Should something be done about this?-- Boffob 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Something definatly needs to be done. Added this note. same as on List of social networking websites. Alot of work is ahead to remove the non notables and links, however it has prooved the most sucessful method by far. No article, no inclusion.-- Hu12 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Did a substantial cleanup on the article. hopefully it now only needs watching.-- Hu12 11:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, i'm Diego Massanti, owner of massanti.com, site that is actually hosting one of the very few versions of the "think different" commercial by apple, in a decent quality. Why you keep removing that link (and others of mine) ?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomass ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello! Can you give your opinion about the subject discussed on my talk page? Thanks! Stefanvaduva 11:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. ( Floppydog66 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)) reply

Hello, Could you give your opinion into my talk page 217.222.76.201?. I have a username that is blocked indefinite because containing a company name and is inappropriate. I would like to change it from "Marketing Eurotech" to "Eth mtk" because I would like to create a new article about "Eurotech Group". I don't know if you are successful in view my talk page. If you don't view this, could you warn me into this section? Thank you in advance. Kind Regards, ADF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.8.67.146 ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 October 2007