The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok - firstly thanks both for the vote and getting some stuff done on the list, it is great to see some movement there.
However (!) can I get you to take a look at logging. Rather than write it again maybe take a look at the thread here which explains most of it - I have tried to improve the instructions since. It really is important particularly as the list grows. I picked up the background on one appeal on Meta yesterday in minutes to give the link. A. B. then found a whole raft of extra domains to list! You may care to watch this page (kinda watches threads on the whole page) too? If I can explain/help do let me know, cheers -- Herby talk thyme 09:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You just deleted a message from my talk page. Why? Foobaz· o< 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12. I recently made a spam report to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#.blogpost.com. I really think those URLs need to be blacklisted as soon as possible as they are continuously spammed. A new account ( Castspell) has been spamming those links and is an obvious sockpuppet of the accounts I made in that report. "Castspell" claims he'll just keep returning under a different IP. So you might you want to blacklist those URLs I gave and the ones shown in his contributions. The name is similar to mine because of trolling (just check the history on Saturday Nights, Sunday Mornings). Thanks. Spellcast 02:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to urge you to be a little more cautious in your deletion of external links. While some of them are questionable links, many are entirely appropriate per WP:EL. | this one, for example. I do not believe these kinds of edits ( [1], [2], [3]) are supported by WP:EL. If you would care to discuss the types of links that are appropriate generally, we should do that on the talk page for WP:EL. Thanks, Wikidemo 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12:
I noticed that you left a message in my talk area on July 12 -
Spam sock accounts Sparkweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Craigrosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 65.91.82.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) 65.168.148.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) --Hu12 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify the meaning of this message?
It came almost 5 weeks after I had already been contacted and corrected by your fellow editor / contributor Femto; since that time I have not violated any guidelines. In fact, I have not posted any contributions since that time.
If your entry indicates that my account is responsible for any vandalism or other inappropriate behavior, I ask that you remove the message, since my account history clearly shows no vandlism activity.
Thanks - Craigrosa 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Your accounts appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting KQED and is in violation of wikipedia policies. The continued long term abuse of this project includes edits that date as far back as 2 years [5] originating from a KQED Public Radio IP address. This IP alone is responsible for over 305 Edits on Wikipedia. Please don't pretend or act like this is something new.
“ | A Wikipedia
conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a
neutral,
verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict.
COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. [6]. |
” |
— Wikipedia:Conflict of interest |
You've stated in the above post that "we do need to make some good-faith edits to the overall KQED page...". I would strongly suggest against that. Any further violations will result in your account and/or your IP address being permantly blocked from editing Wikipedia. Understand, you have no right to control the content on the KQED page. If you or your orginization wishes to suggest changes to an article, you should do so by using that article's talk page. When making a request please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding. And remember Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world ---- Hu12 03:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said Before If KQED stops and abides by Wikipedia policies (which i believe now they will) i forsee nothing to worry about-- Hu12 07:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think your removal of the Criticisms section of the Prosper page, as well as useful external links, is vandalism. Are you a Prosper employee trying to scrub out any criticisms? Leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.184.223 ( talk) 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You haven't answered this, despite your repeated efforts to delete useful and appropriate information from the Prosper page. In addition, you have ignored my comments in the discussion page of the Prosper page. You sent me a message about edit wars, but to me it appears that YOU are the one involved in an edit war. I added appropriate material, which you deleted in full (along with much other appropriate material not adeed by me). I saw a Wikipedia help page on reversions that stated that wholesale reversions and deletions of other editors' additions are generally to be avoided. Thus, as near as I can tell, it is you, not I, that is violating the rules by your repeated deletions of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.184.223 ( talk) 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12 - I see that you nominated PokerPlayer magazine for deletion and removed links to articles from that magazine in a number of poker player articles. The AFD is probably okay - to my knowledge it is not a really widely circulated magazine - but I think that most of the links themselves are okay and in some cases pertinent. Plus most of them have been there awhile and no one has objected (we are usually pretty good about keeping spam out of the poker articles).
I reverted the links back in, and will mention it over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker so that others can have a look at it. If you want to make a case then please come comment at WP Poker. Thanks. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 07:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you've made a few posts at WT:EL and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this discussion. An IP keeps trying to add a link to a small forum and has since been misinterpreting WP:EL and has now demanded an outside opinion. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 0422 07:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Removing verifiable content just to remove it, after being warned, how is that NOT vandalism? User:MaryPoppins878 is not a content dispute, she keeps removing verified content "just because she feels like it" after multiple warnings. An explanation would be helpful. Irish Lass 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If a new user, IP only, no edit history, comes in and randomly removes content, leaves no edit summary, and you revert that on a page that you've reverted before, is that 3:RR since it's a new IP address removing verifiable content with no edit history prior to the removal of content? I had that happened and reverted because it wasn't MaryPoppins. Was that wrong? It wasn't content, it was more like blanking on a small scale. Irish Lass 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
68.47.105.94 ( talk · contribs) seems to be the same as this one that you blocked. I'm not 100% sure yet, but I find it extremely unlikely that two different vandals will target the same article in the same hour with the same attack style. Just thought I should bring it to your attention (article in question is here. Thanks, Master of Puppets Care to share? 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly thanks. I'll not do the fancy sort of thanks but I'm not someone who would say nothing either. A surprising number of people supported me & I only hope I can come up to expectations.
Then advice. I've been fortunate (or otherwise) to have had the rights on projects whose concern about some areas of policy is not as strict as en wp! Equally on your own at times on a small wiki there is a tendency to make up your own rules & while I would never suggest any of my actions were tinged with rouge.... Specifically on Meta I fully protected closed blacklist archives quite quickly. There is no need for any editing at all and on Meta it seemed people thought if they deleted the request relating to them it would actually go! I have better things to do with my time than revert edits on totally unnecessary pages. Would I get into trouble here for protecting? Equally the log page (thanks) should, in my view, be sprot at the very least as it and teh archive serve as a "mnatter of record" of the requests?
If you do see any blunders, feel free to point them out to me, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw you were trying to protect Young O - if you didn't know the way to protect a page now is to use Wikipedia:Protected titles which makes the name a red link rather than a blue link. –– Lid( Talk) 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
While I am glad that their edits were reverted, an indefinite block seems to be a bit much. Maybe the user does not understand what a reliable source is or how references are used on Wikipedia. And, "Cuba" claims to enjoy the site. Am I missing part of the story? – thedemonhog talk • edits 08:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
For the spamstar which is appreciated indeed. Equally for the prot on the log page. I've done the closed archive too. I'd argue that as Mediawiki pages they are not conventional en wp pages nor should be treated as such for what it's worth. I'll have a go at organising the archive when I can (the next one at least) - to have request for listing and delisting junked together seems odd to me, I'll steal the meta version.
I'm sure you noticed but the poker one is done too. Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu, This is just to ask you. How did you realise that the link that you removed in Edward Luce was posted by a person from the organisation from where the link originated? I had created the original entry and never realised it. I just thought someone had posted a useful link on the said person.
Also that entry was made in June soon after I had created the entry, so it would have taken a bit of your time in tracing that link. Only after you mentioned did I run that IP address and find out it was true. Just curious:-) I am watching your page so answer here-- PremKudva Talk 12:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you had deleted a spam .com site on Meteora and other sites. While I hate spam, the site itself seemed to provide exceptional visual impressions not available on Wikipedia so I left it. I would be interested in your perspective. Thanks. Student7 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
...and screwing with valid edits. What's up? This "spamlink" thing seems pretty broken. -- 71.42.142.238 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondered whether you'd consider un-blacklisting the recent link on The World is Flat article. I wasn't the original poster and have no ties to the sponsoring org. Looks as legit to me as the MIT link already there. Thanks. Barte 18:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#cceia.org__and_policyinnovations.org
I do not consider them an outrageous spammer, and have commented to that account on the Spam project page. Perhaps as many as one half the links they put in were justified, being major publications by the subjects or major affiliations by their very important partners. Not all, of course. some are spam. Blacklisting is probably an over-reaction--and listing their publications for deletion really inappropriate. DGG ( talk) 02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I question the need for the template you added to the article, and you have not shared your justification for doing so. This is simply trashing up a FA with no credible reason given so far that I've seen. Professor marginalia ( talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the archiving since I don't understand what the discussion was that took place. Dirk Beetstra stated to use the COIBot to tell it's use? I don't understand how this is helpful when the spammer crosses articles with taopage and fruedfile.org. 96.224.102.105 ( talk) 08:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a response at Talk:List of social networking websites. You removed a large section of that article and so far it seems as if you are the only editor in favor of that action. -- ElKevbo ( talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hu, I read the notes you left on my talk page on Nov 12. Thanks for them. Because I am new to Wikipedia, my approach to edit the page was not right. And once I came to your page, I saw so much discussion that it was worth spending 20 minutes just reading all previous Q&A here. While I use wikipedia everyday, I am new as a Contributor and I added references to a couple of external sites without first discussing on their talk pages with other regular contributors (this talk page concept has become clear only now). Now I am doing that, and sharing notes on Talk page to get opinion from others. Three quick questions for you to help me with next steps (a)Is this approach the right way to proceed? (b) What if the talk page has not seen anybody for months and the site I want to reference is indeed run by independent journalists? (c) Your note had a link: cutline.tubetorial.com - I never added that. Wonder how that appeared to you? This is my first interaction with people behind Wikipedia, so please bear with me. Thanks. ( Shankar AVSB ( talk) 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
What was the point of this? Videmus Omnia Talk 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Videmus Omnia, is there any point with your continual reversions on that user's talkpage? Have you considered a RFC for this matter? It is obvious that the user is feeling quite harassed right now. Sfacets 06:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be some bullying going on between various users especially user:Ryulong, who continuously adds information to this user's discussion page after the user has removed it. Sfacets 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In regard to this, do I need to explain where I edit on Wikipedia for some reason? Videmus Omnia Talk 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed the talk pages above, I'm not seeing anything rising even remotely to the level of disruption or harrasment. "Pestering" admins is certainly annoying, probably counterproductive, and bloody-well not against the rules. If you're geniunely concerned, that's not coming across in the messages you're leaving. They quite easily read as threats of blocking for thoughtcrime.
Taking your concerns to ANI or raise a request for comment might be more productive. Or just speaking more normally.
CygnetSaIad ( talk) 07:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI The Bloomsbury Spammer is back. Mannafredo ( talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I note that you reverted Lsi johns removal of a discussion on his talkpage (which had previously been reverted by another admin after he had removed in the first place). As far as I am aware contributors are permitted to blank or otherwise remove material from their talkpage, although archiving is preferred. Is there any rule or policy I am unaware of permits a third party to replace messages against the will of the user (since it all remains in the history)? Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed this. – thedemonhog talk • edits 04:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk)
11:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12 - you seem to be putting negative comments about me around the place - could you have a look at my most recent message on the spam blacklist, and try to Assume Good Faith before acting? I don't think I'm a spammer - please have a look at my past contributions. Annihilatenow ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I don't know who you are, maybe you can shed some light on that for me; You obviously have something against my site, you probably own your own JAWS site. But can you use common sense and realise I'm not spamming and am adding links to relative articles, and they're not alot. It is to do with the movie JAWS, the ride, the novel. Stop being jealous mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
firstly I think you'll find not all those IP addresses belong to me, I've only posted on Lostshark and one of those address'.
secondly I am here to help wikipedia and so I use text from my site to add to wikipedia and add external links to my site to help users from wikipedia get more info for what they're looking for. Shall I just ask someone I know to post the links instead? Or will you think those IP addresses belong to me too? It looks like someone already has tried to put my link back. I contribute not just to promote, my site is a non-profit one and is for informational purposes only so I don't gain from it, it's just nice for people to find things easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok bear in mind I have a "Commons" background.... Image:Goldenaxe3.jpg would (I think) be deleted out of hand as a screenshot and so cannot be legally licensed? I know licensing is different here so maybe that kind of thing is ok? Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 16:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry to bother you... you moved the xiulian article but i don't find it in the wiktionary. It's linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism (top right side). Also some links was removed from bottom category of Sacred Sites. What's the process in that situation to clean up that box? StopTaoSpam ( talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed that warning you issued to that victimized user as harassment. Please leave him alone. • Lawrence Cohen 20:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to patronize me. If any of us needs a change of activity, it is the one who has not written any encyclopedia content for a while forgetting that this is the main purpose of this project. Your accusing me of vandalism does not even warrant a response. Please reread WP:VAND when you have a minute.
Your "explanations of of policy" as you called your edits at !!'s talk was mere baiting which could only aggravated the abused user further. Note that he thanked me for removing your stuff. Now, please stop abusing this user any further. He had enough. If you have an urge to post some policy reminders, you are free to use my talk for that. I never take arrogant lecturing close to heart. But the user in question does not need anything of that sort. If you continue baiting him, it will be added as evidence to the ongoing ArbCom case which was specifically prompted by the abuse of the excellent content editor by arrogance of a small circle of non-writing admins. Happy edits, -- Irpen ( talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments on !!'s talkpage as well as the proposed decision talkpage of the arbitration case. I find your approach and comments to be astonishingly insensitive and unnecessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your "warning" was entirely uncalled for and counterproductive. Please leave this exceptional contributer in peace. Paul August ☎ 23:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that your admin nominator was desysopped, but I'm afraid I also found your "warning" to be arrogant and counterproductive. I find your comment to Irpen, above, about "attempt(ing) to suppress...communication through intimidation" particularly hypocritical in light of this message you left on my talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a mediation cabal volunteer, and a fellow user, Ira01, has opened a case involving you, over the article Prosper (web site). I would like to mediate this case, which is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-28 Prosper (web site). I would appreciate it if you would let me know if you'd be willing to participate with me as a mediator. I hope that I can help you solve the problem, and I know that this is an informal process, so please air your doubts if you have any. Thank you. Regards, Neranei (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on User talk:Herbythyme#Blacklist, I really do think all of blogspot.com should be blocked with whitelisting done on an individual basis. Yet another throwaway IP ( 67.55.6.214) is spamming even more new sites. Spellcast ( talk) 02:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
warn User: Right America for his recent edits to Buddhism? Get back ASAP please. -- MKnight 9989 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am but a humble worker (while of course being a hacker of international repute ;)). I tend to copy what folk who know better than me do and that is what I did on meta. However as time went by I learnt a bit to stop my regex being sloppy (I had some patient teachers too). There is a sense in which having the admin tools should not allow people to edit such pages. I've fixed a few listings on Meta now that had unplanned effects because the regex was not precise enough. We really only want to block a particular site by and large and the \b both begins and ends the listing. If you check the link I guess the ending one is less necessary but it is possible that it would be needed. Block a xxx.com without \b and you will get xxx.com.au as well for example which may well not be correct(?). Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
With your expertise in adsense spam, I wanted to run this by you. Webgeek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been posting links to the same "news website" in citations. The site (andhranews.net) is really a directory that reprints news from other outlets without proper references. The site has an abusive amount of advertising including Adsense. The pub for that page also matches another site linked by the user ( diff). The user had previously spammed another site (thisdaythatyear.com). Looking at the source for this page gives an adsense pub of 6158899834265448, but when mousing over the the Ads by Google link, the pub is the same as for the two sites previously mentioned: 4636414695604775. If anything, the user just needs to be encouraged to use a different source, but I wanted to see if you had any insight on the relationships between these websites. Thanks. Nposs ( talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Left a warning for Webgeek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and reverted todays contribs -- Hu12 ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mistakes need acknowledging, where I've criticized a comment of yours. Apologies if I came over too strong there, but I feel very strongly about this. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the link to an author's Lulu.com page as a commercial link. What is the WP policy on links to Lulu? I see it is linked from the Lulu (publisher) article itself (no brainer there), but I haven't yet found a mention of it in any more general EL policies or discussions. Has it been discussed somewhere? Personally, I think it's a bit of a grey area. The site is commercial, but if it is the printer used by an otherwise notable author, and if the author's page on Lulu.com has info relevant to the article, I think it may be worth linking, especially as we link to other author websites that often have links to where their books can be purchased. Hmmm... - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to why you've chosen to label me as "an individual associated with the" Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and accused me of posting "multi article linkspam". Care to explain? Picaroon (t) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12,
I wanted to ask your advice on how I can change the article about AtTask to meet criteria. I took out the sentences I had added about AtTask's integration features since they might be interpreted as advertisements or self-promotion.
Also, I found a number of independent sources that have covered AtTask's fairly in-depth: [56], [57], [58], and [59].
I am also happy to expand the article and include more sources. More in-depth Wikipedia articles like Vpmi, 24sevenoffice, and ProjectInsight have even less independent and in-depth references, yet have not been made candidates for deletion.
Vpdjuric ( talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric
Hang on - I think you're reverting to the wrong version. While there clearly is a COI, the COI version is actually more accurate and neutral than the other. For instance, the company name is IO2 Technology, not IO2 technologies; and the version you reverted to contains a bunch of anon-posted and completely unsourced hostile commentary (e.g. "The unit was apparently riddled with flaws due to an immature engineering set up"). Maybe it would be better to revert further back before the edit war started. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hu12. Why would the AfD template on this article point to the AfD of Worldwide Business Research? There is currently no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TradeTech. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I consider your block excessive, as this was for the insertion of a very small number of links from appropriate pages to useful neutral informational pages at the site of a major non-profit oranization. Please do not abuse your authority on things like this, when there are major spammers to deal with. DGG ( talk) 06:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyplace that offers a simplified explanation of what s/he was doing? I read a very long page and I am afraid that I did not understand the technicalities.<br. /> -- Nbahn ( talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm writing to you because I see you're patrolling the List of project management software. Doing RC patrol, I am accustomed to people speedied for notability saying "but the article about X is no more notable", to which the reply is WP:WAX. But today I speedied Standard Time (software) as spam, and its creator bounced back with a new version, and an edit summary of "This is not an ad. The software exists. It is a project management product, listed with the others in the List of Project Management Products." So I prepared a reply explaining that existence was not enough, we need significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and saying read WP:NOTE and WP:SPAM and WP:COI and so on; and prepared to put a PROD on the entry to give it some time. But before posting those, I went to have a look at the existing products in the List, and having done that I really can't feel justified in rejecting Standard Time (software) - I looked at the first 12 and I doubt if any could survive a strict application of WP:NOTE - certainly seven of them have no external reference except their own website.
This seems more of a worried ramble than anything. I guess my question is: what standards of notability do we/should we actually apply in practice? Would the best thing be to let Standard Time (software) in and put a {{notability}} template on it, and on all the others? JohnCD ( talk) 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Well, what can I say, Hu12. I so appreciate your support both during my RfA as well as over the last year. I probably wouldn't have done this without your continued encouragement (and pestering). I look forward to using these new tools. -- A. B. (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you redirected the article 'Project Portfolio Management Software' to 'Project Portfolio Management'. By doing so, the content on the page has been lost. I was hoping you could tell me why this was done and if it can be undone.-- Tilleyg ( talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Below is a list of published books. Could you please unblock?
-- Usc.ultrageek ( talk) 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't able to participate, I was away from Wikipedia at the time. I hope the issue is resolved. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I deleted a message left on my talk page because it was an unwarranted personal attack. As noted in WP:UP "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages." It should not be reverted. Many thanks, Xcstar ( talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Can i delete it then because i want to put it behind me and that comment you made. Sunder land 06 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
So, hows about it.Thanks. Sunder land 06 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings, he's allowed to remove the warnings, even if he's blocked right now.
My putting Guy's note back once and explanding on it in depth was at least in the grey area of Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments; just putting it back again after he removes it is probably against the guideline on user pages.
We don't need to beat him up with the stuff. He's seen it and acknowledged both posts; and responded to mine. Pushing him into behavior that could get him blocked by pestering him on his user talk page is not good practice on our part...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
See Rickover talk page. As previously noted, Wikipedia's "censure" page is completely irrelevant to this article. -- 24.28.6.209 ( talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Elert for a period of 48 hours for repeated self-promotional spam. When I went back to check/revert his changes, I found that you had beat me to the punch. Cheers, Vsmith ( talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12,
I noticed that you recently deleted the article about @task (the software) and locked the page. I think that @task meets Wikipedia's criterion for notability: "Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s). This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews." Full-length reviews have been written about @task in InformationWeek, eWeek, web 2.0 journal, rev2.org, etc.
After the first [ AfD] debate, I thought the conclusion was that the article should be re-written to be about the software (since the company was not notable, but the software was notable). I rewrote the article and put it on [ my user page] and asked for everyone's feedback. I got a bit of feedback, and after making some changes to the tone of the article, I posted it.
I would like to understand whether the article was deleted because it had the tone of an advertisement or if @task (the software) is not notable. If its the former, please take a look at my user page and give me feedback on how you think the article should be changed. Vpdjuric ( talk) 03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12,
Based on the activity logs of the above page, it shows that you have deleted the article and blocked the re-creation of the article. You have referred to the deletion review of the article, however do note that in the review, it was clearly stated that the article that was tagged from deletion is different from the article that was deleted. After the deletion of the article, i have sought the assistance of some of the admins who have participated in the review by asking them to review the page via my user page. They have approved the page due to it being different from the earlier tagged and asked me to go ahead to create it again. Please review and consider the deletion again.
Thanks Dleewh ( talk) 13:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And a very merry christmas to you, and indeed a very happy new year. Sunder land 06 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion of Incisive Media , but isn't 4 days a little soont o be re-noming it for deletion after a keep? Watching here. Mbisanz ( talk) 08:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion as an experienced editor and I was wondering if you could advice me on a particular issue? Alatari ( talk) 10:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12,
Have you had a chance to review the rewritten @task article on my user page? Just wanted to get your opinion. Thanks. Vpdjuric ( talk) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please remove your warning from Lyoshka's page. There is a thread here regarding the additions, and no one seems to agree with your classifying this as "spam." Mr Which ??? 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had seen the discussion here before staring the one below. If the issue is that the links are tainted solely due to their insertion by a supposed "spammer", why were they removed when I reinserted them. I have pored over the site, and all I find is useful and relevant information about congressional staff salaries. Again, you will need to reference a valid Wikipedia policy that requires their deletion. Alansohn ( talk) 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you recently posted the above AFD which was closed by User:Bearian, I believe, inappropriately. I posted a message (through the advice of the Wikipedia:Deletion review guidelines) on this user's talk page stating my opinion on that matter, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on this as well. I think we need to overturn this deletion and simply warn the primary editors of the page. Otherwise, we'll need to delete all the articles at List of project management software, which I believe would worsen Wikipedia's coverage on the topic, not improve it (and I'm as concerned about spam as anyone). Thanks. -- Renesis ( talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
On several occasions, you have removed links to legistorm.com, a site which provides relevant Congressional staff salary information, without providing any justification for removal. Your changes have been reverted. If you have a valid justification that requires their removal under Wikipedia policy, you must provide that as part of your edit summary. Further inappropriate deletions will be reverted. Alansohn ( talk) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - must have made a "friend"! Interesting - no reverse DNS on that IP according to luxo -- Herby talk thyme 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You recently responded to an ANI report on an editor's addition of a website as potential spamming of a website with images. I've responded on the
report. It appears that all of the images are actually "free" images, released under Creative Commons license 3.0. —
ERcheck (
talk)
04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This user is still vandalizing Wikipedia and/or violating npov in editing articles, despite the warnings we have given. I don't know what else to do. In addition to this, the article Music of Karnataka is a copy of Carnatic music (like a test page prior to the latter article's creation), except it has a lot of nonsense in it. I've listed it under a speedy deletion tag. Could you please help in both matters? Cheers. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just catching up on stuff - can you log the whitelisting, it will make it easier in the future - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all you do. I know you get criticized -- sometimes just for trying to help some other editor when they've gotten themselves into a situation you would've have handled differently.
I think it's in the best interest of encyclopedia-building to consider some sort of controlled removal of legistorm from the blacklist, but I personally cannot support such an action until folks calm down and stop poking sticks in your and Herby's eyes. -- A. B. (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I got the same spurious warning and I think that account User:Macys123 might be compromised so I am considering blocking. What do you think? TerriersFan ( talk) 02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hu12. How about I restore that link at UST Global but as a reference, not an external link? That *is* an interview with the COO of UST Global though it doesn't need to puff sourcingmag.com while doing so. EdJohnston ( talk) 06:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. When you blocked Clinical archives ( talk · contribs), you did so with autoblock on, account creation disabled, and email disabled [65]. FYI, it's important that a user name block for a good faith username be a "soft block" so that they can create another account. -- B ( talk) 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
For the help on the reference fixes on the Howe page. I had a brain cramp. Newguy34 ( talk) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to have your support in regards to that the merging should be done - I understand you are a respected administrator. However I'm not sure to what extent your support extends. All the coaching articles need work - and most of them would not be heavily hurt by merging into coaching since most say little besides "coaching is not consulting or therapy or ..."
I am rather inexperienced in terms of merging articles, and so have proceded with less boldness than could be liked. I would like to make Life and Development Coaching a redirect - I shall attempt to do so immediately, redirecting thus to life coaching.
Thanks again.
--
Kiyarrlls
ton
18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't necesarily disagree with the removal of the ship review links, I just want to understand the reasons. Were they removed because the incorrect link format caused them to redirect to the site's main page? The links were pointing towards addresses such as http://cruisecritic.com/reviews/review.cfm?ShipID=306 ... after looking, it appears that the target site now requires the "www." in the domain name, so if the link instead read http://www.cruisecritic.com/reviews/review.cfm?ShipID=306 , then it goes to the actual ship review. Even with the corrected link, I'm not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia; but removing due to "redirect" reasons appears a fixable issue. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be unfair to remove one user's comments and not the other's. Alice copy and pasted the Help:Reverting article to the Kingdom of Kongo talkpage. Remove her spam. Jose João ( talk) 06:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you this as I am unsure of the WP policy regarding discussion pages about BLPs. User IP 68.166.238.18 has posted a link to a website on the discussion page under Celebrity Friends and Royal Cousins. The link is to a source that fails the WP:BLP#Reliable_sources and has previously been removed from the article itself under that WP policy. Is that link allowable on the discussion page?-- Lazydown ( talk) 14:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hu12 - I have essentially rewritten the HedgeStreet article from the ground up. Could you take a look and see if you feel it still merits a visit to WP:AFD? According to WP:PROD, articles that have been up for discussion at AFD ( as this one has) should not be PROD-deleted but rather taken back to AFD. If you are ok with removing the PROD-template from the current version, I would take that as a "withdrawn nomination" from AFD. If you feel the article should still be considered for deletion, I will post it to AFD myself as a procedural matter ... but I would ask that you update your PROD-reason before I do that so I can properly represent your concerns. Regards, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think he has a strong relation with second breath program from Moldova. That's why his POV to destroy the articles. Ungurul ( talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI: I replied to WT:SHIPS#Cruise_Ships_and_use_of_review_links, I did not know if you are monitoring that page. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my edits of others comments on the talk page. Perhaps it was overzealous of me but it seems to me that some of the comments are directly against WP:RS, specifically the point addressing Biographies of living persons which states, Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just the article space. I removed the reference to that particular website because it isn't allowed.
Further, I'm sorry for "text bombing" the talk page, but it seemed necessary to specifically list why certain things User Heraldic and a couple of other IP Users could not include that reference and why Howe's website is allowed. It has all been repeated to them many times on the talk page and they seem to be ignoring it. It's very frustrating because they are systematically attempting to circumvent the purpose of WP:BLP.-- Lazydown ( talk) 02:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this the correct location to raise concerns about a possible conflict of interest? --Heraldic 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic ( talk • contribs)
Why the hell did you delete my entry in the discussion in the Copacabana article? That was uncalled for. Rsazevedo ( talk) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the intrusion once again. I'm writing you in the hopes of avoiding an edit war between myself and user Heraldic. You are the most senior editor on this page and I was looking for your feedback.
The following is an uncited statement under the heading Sale of Titles, There is no historical evidence that the Kings or Lords of Man ever granted noble titles.
I requested that this be cited and user Heraldic reverted the edit saying, You cannot request evidence that something does not exist. Howe should provide detail
I'm thinking that this statement uncited is against WP:V. Your thoughts?-- Lazydown ( talk) 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
User Newguy34, on my talk page, has accused me of fabricating the following source, Ancestry.com. One World Tree, Thomas Stanley II to David Drew Howe, on line database. Provo, Utah. The Generations Network, Inc., retrieved 27, December When I explained that anyone could get a free trial and follow the names on the pedigree as I did, he then claimed that Howe falsely added his name into the pedigree on Ancestry.com. I explained to him that his pedigree was part of the OneWorldTree project and it was peer reviewed. I think this is in extremely poor taste and opens up Wikipedia to serious libel problems allowing him to continue with his rants and false accusations and deleting verifiable third-party citations. Any suggestions?-- Lazydown ( talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section on history of claims, noble titles and micronations. It seems to go against WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. I cited both as a reason. I know it will probably get reverted by the ususual suspects but the article is really being skewed towards the negative. I've left some comments on the BLP notice board but it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. If it continues this way it should be deleted altogther.-- Lazydown ( talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
To date, Lazydown has not posted the suggested material on the article's talk page. IYO, should it be deleted as a source? Newguy34 ( talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Heraldic's latest edit to the page. He has bolded comments in the reaction to claim section from the Isle of Man government and Buckingham Palace. In his comment on the edit he stated he was "Emphasis added for clarity." I don't want to start an edit war with him but he is clearly adding emphasis to his POV and not for clarity.-- Lazydown ( talk) 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I can not see how Ancestry.com can be used as a reliable source, but in the end, it's for all of us to decide. From a NYT article on the site, "Ancestry.com — the most widely used — is the flagship site of Generations Network in Provo, Utah, .. has free content, including a family tree maker, but also lets users search immigration, census and military records for fees that depend on the level of records sought."
From All Things Digital, "Each person on a family tree has his or her own page with a life-events timeline and the records that you attach to the profile [emphasis added]."
From Ancestry.com's site, "Note: Ancestry World Tree GEDCOM files are voluntarily submitted by Ancestry users like yourself. We take all files "as is" and cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information contained in this database. We regret we cannot assist you in your personal research or prevent duplication of data. Our goal is to provide these user-contributed files to aid you in finding and/or correcting your family information."
Anscestry.com is clearly a "do-it-yourself" geneaology website. I can find no evidence that there is any peer reviewing of thie information. Your thoughts? Newguy34 ( talk) 21:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! I'm curious about the box to the right in my biography page. I've read through some of the edits and the feeling seemed to be that my connection as a direct descendant of Thomas II could not be included because there was no source that could be used. However, the box is marked with the disclaimer "Claim lacks independent verification". It also lists my parents, wife and child, all of which lack independent verification. Would it not be sufficent then to also list my connection to Thomas II given that the disclaimer is posted? Thank you for your time and attention. David Howe-- 70.17.223.254 ( talk) 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
How do I go about uploading the arms and any pictures? And, I imagine that I can't add these to the page myself, correct? Thanks, David-- Kingofmann ( talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I just uploaded my picture, arms, badge and monogram for use.-- Kingofmann ( talk) 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that a person going by "Heraldic" made an edit today noting a possible flaw in my Gazette notice regarding the date of the grant to King John I. In the interest of a neutral article, I address this issue at www.hmkingdavid.homestead.com/basis.html, linked through the news page in the body of the copy of my claim. I'm not suggesting you have to do anything with that, but obviously I'm not supposed to be making edits to my own biography here. Thanks,-- Kingofmann ( talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I would alert you to a recent edit of mine. I added that the sale of noble titles dates back to at least 1615 in England with James I. I added this to demonstrate to the unintended reader that the sale of titles was not a new innovation. I think that is important for NPOV. It was deleted once already by Newguy34 who seems to have made a sport out of deleting my edits. I have readded the statement with the explanation. I will watch it, but I'm hoping to avoid an edit war. Perhaps you could give your opinion regarding my edit. Thanks.-- Lazydown ( talk) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am curious about your designation [69] here that 151.204.231.247 is a Single Purpose Account. Upon looking at the uesrs contributions Special:Contributions/151.204.231.247, i noticed that the editor seemed to be an editor who had just begun on wikipedia. However, the editor had made only one edit relating to the upcoming 2008 elections. He had made many other edits to other articles about other topics. I find the notion that he could be a Single Purpose Account very questionable. Please explain why you added this designation or i will remove the tag. Perpetualization ( talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. As suggested by you, I've put a section in the noticeboard a few times, although somehow, the section on this user has always been overlooked. I've adjusted the title and hope it isn't ignored this time. Maybe you could go through it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock-puppetry.2C_Vandalism.2C_Creation_of_Multiple_User_Names
Thanks heaps. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This image isn't fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.215.101 ( talk) 01:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
also the Jaws part of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Studios_Studio_Tour_%28Hollywood%29 needs to be removed, was extracted from blacklisted site. the text is not allowed to be reproduced on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.215.101 ( talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your ongoing efforts to improve Wikipedia. I have a question and comment. I've noticed that you removed the link to Vuze's official Neko Rahmen channel from the Neko Rahmen wikipedia entry.
What is the standard for the official anime company links to the anime they are licensing or have created? I've noticed most of the anime wikipedia listings have links to companies like ADV, or Funimation, etc. Vuze is the exclusive distributor outside of Japan and also created the only English subtitled version of this anime. In my humble opinion, an external link to the company that is the exclusive distributor outside Japan and creator of the official English subtitled versions is a benefit to Wikipedia -- just as it's a benefit for the many other examples with other anime series where this is the case. Though Vuze is not as well known, it serves the same function as other well known anime distributors.
Thanks a bunch -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manga007 ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 December 2007
-Thanks for responding. This really isn't a big deal. And I don't care all that much but I'm trying to understand this process. I looked over the link you cited and saw that Vuze (also known as Azureus) was cited for creating articles on "Vuze", "Vuze, Inc." and "Azureus". So to get this straight, Vuze is blacklisted for creating articles on itself and now no one can now post a link to Vuze? Really no big deal, but I'm curious to learn more about how a subject/entity can put itself into a position where no one can ever link to them in the future. Seems scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manga007 ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like your 24 hour block of 63.226.228.171 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log) didn't have the intended result. First edit after the block expired was to add the link to ridetheslut.com back to South Lake Union Streetcar. [70] -- Bobblehead (rants) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hu12, when did I ever once use wikipedia for advertising? I have never done this in my life. Your rationale for the block is incoherent in terms of the definition of advertising. Can you please explain yourself? 205.200.244.98 ( talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - you deleted this article for copyright reasons. As he was a top player for Tottenham Hotspur in his time, could you possibly re-instate it so that I can improve it by removing any copyright problems and adding appropriate references. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've created a discussion page for the above article and would appreciate it if you would take a look. Feel completely free to delete this once read... And the Lion ( talk) 11:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In hope that we will work together in the new year. DGG ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:Deferwps has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Richard Ω6 12 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The page copacabana has a list. Me and the user Rsazevedo are having conflicts as to how organize the list (which should come first on the list?)
Since you are impartial to the issue and if you have the time, could you please organize the list anyway you want so the conflict could be resolved?
It would take less than a minute, thanks.
EconomistBR ( talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I took some liberty to arrange it in an attempt to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Hopefuly this agrees with both of you. Cheers-- Hu12 ( talk) 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
EconomistBR ( talk) 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
EconomistBR ( talk) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This smearing campaign and personal attacks of Rsazevedo against Hu12 is Rsazevedo's vengeance against Hu12, because Hu12's impartial ruling didn't produce satisfactory results to Rsazevedo.
EconomistBR ( talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The reason why I added the dailydooh.com site to the list of external links is that, despite being technically a blog, the author is a well-reputed industry analyst. Dailydooh.com is probably the only site that provides specialist cover of the EMEA region. One of the existing external links at the moment (mediadigitalsignage.com) is just a crappy link collection without actual content. Dailydooh.com provides more accurate and up-to-date information, in addition to be less US-centric.
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgbustos ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have read all the comments and I do not understand your insistence on deleting the debunking site about Drew Howe unrealroyal.com. I agree that it is opinionated but itis also valid and researched and cited. If people are allowed to exclude all negative information from articles about themselves than Wikipedia becomes a mere advertising vanity site. Please explain why you think this is unacceptable and yet Howe's claims are allowed to be perpetuated as referenced external sites? The Myspace site in particular is pure self advertising puffery and has no place in my opinion but you find that it is acceptable. Howe appears to my reading to be a lying fraud attempting to exploit people's vanities for money and yet you seem to want to remove any negative research into his claims. Has he offered you a peerage, Lord Hu12 of Creg-ny-baa, perhaps? (;-) in case you are wondering) Dabbler ( talk) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There are now two methods to protect non-existent pages. One method is to use the protect tab on the deleted page. The second option is to use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Both of these changes were made a few days ago, and thus, the old WP:PT was entirely deprecated. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I sent you an email but not sure if you received it. I think an indef block of Ustaudinger ( talk · contribs) for what is essentially a first offense may be a bit harsh. Can we try a more limited block first to see if that changes the behavior? Ronnotel ( talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Had to extend the block (threats disruption during block, page trolling, abuse of tags) this endever would seem to be a big waste of time.-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an expert, but I put an item on the talk page suggesting re-instatement of the link, which you deleted, to Humphries's text on Particle Acceleration. Details of my reasoning are there, but the policy on external links does recommend textbooks, and it does not appear that he is explicitly offering the book for sale. Just looking at the TOC suggests that it has a lot of material that would be very useful for anyone seeking greater depth than an encyclopedia can offer. Not clear if the person who posted the link is the author, but his few other edits seem generally constructive. Thanks Wwheaton ( talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thanks for continually beating me to vandalism reverts on pages like Biodiesel; nice work. E8 ( talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, I do not understand why "Monitor Group" entry was deleted and protected. The reason given is that it was deleted and recreated multiple times. I think that might be because people who didn't know how to create a wiki entry did them. I do not see what is wrong with the article I created today. I put up the article again in the Talk page of the Monitor Group. Please review it and reconsider the deletion and the protection. Thank you. Floralpattern ( talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Please could you explain your reason for deleting all links to heraldry-online.org.uk?--Heraldic 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I based the entry on the articles for other similar organizations, so I thought it would not get deleted. I will try rewriting the entry and check with you. Floralpattern ( talk) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment I had made here has been moved to my Talk page. THanks, Floralpattern ( talk) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain your reasons for deleting all links to heraldry-online.org.uk? (You seem to have inadvertently archived/deleted my original question.) --Heraldic 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 January 2008
I see you have added an EL at Heraldry. Thank you.--Heraldic 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that unpleasant question from my talk page - my pages have had their fair share of vandalism but that was truly the most offensive thing anyone has ever written. Thanks again, kind regards, nancy (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello? Floralpattern ( talk) 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Could you answer my question? If you would rather not deal with this issue, do you suggest that I go to deletion review? Please let me know. Floralpattern ( talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Monitor Group. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Floralpattern ( talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hu12, I'd like to ask you about the delete you made to the article microfinance today, which you notated as a 'spam entry'. Why was this paragraph spam? Everyone who works in microfinance knows that the criticisms identified in it are frequently made. It use references to back up its points. The references lead to the organization (CGAP) generally acknowledged to be the thought-leader in our industry. CGAP has no motivation (profit or otherwise) for self-promotion. I didn't write this paragraph, but watch the page and plan to clean it up and deepen it in the near future. I would like to know what makes this spam, so I don't make the same mistake. Thanks. Brett epic ( talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Heraldic is attempting to include a statement he made under Reaction to Claim, which states, The claim has not received much support in the insular media. Two things, this is his opinion and isn't supported under WP:BLP. And, I have just added an article from the Manx Examiner from Mondays edition that has a favourable view of Howe's claim. I'm looking for a second opinion. What is your feeling on this?-- Lazydown ( talk) 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how do go about getting some things taken off of my biography page that I'd like to be kept out for privacy reasons. Starting with my wife's middle name. It isn't published in any source that I'm aware of. Second, a business I own is part of the biography and the businesses website is being cited as a source and my name is not on the website anywhere. This as well has not been published anywhere I'm aware of and we have received a few nonbusiness calls recently that have come from my biography page. I looked in to some of the policies here and found WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy and it states that "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." And also "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." I've not looked through everything on my biography for privacy but these two jumped out at me right away and neither one of these things have anything to do with my notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofmann ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think in light of all of this, a reasonable solution to these multiple edits, nasty bickering over contentious material, and privacy concerns is to merge discussion of the claim down to an appropriate size, and move it to another article. I read WP notability policies to be fairly specific that if an individual is only notable for a single event, the focus should be on that event (e.g., the claim, itself) rather than on an otherwise un-notable person. Your thoughts? P.S. I have posed this question on the article's talk page, as well. Newguy34 ( talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide page protection to my talk page. User Newguy34 is attempting to besmirch by character and is being harassing continuing to post on my talk page despite the arbitration request.-- Kingofmann ( talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please identify what specifically on the site you believe is "harassment". Note that even sites which violate copyright, if they "clean up their act", are subject to un-blacklisting. A compelling argument should be made if permanent blacklisting is to stand. Wjhonson ( talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand your interest in ensuring spam does not occur - and you are doing fine work. While I, as CEO, personally have a conflict of interest concerning the AtTask page, various others who have contributed content do not. Unfortunately, one of them; vpduric, is not affiliated with our company, but has submitted content very pro-AtTask on our pages and got us bumped after our being on for over a year. Here is my train of thought: There are over 3900 searches for 'Project Management Software' every day on Google. The Wiki page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_software) is #2. Wikipedia should be a credible source of information on this subject. All of the companies listed on that page have wiki entries. Many are not as notable as AtTask. Its true that not many people have heard of AtTask, but all of the industry players have - including analysts. For example, to be included in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for project management, a company has to have significant revenues, be audited by Gartner, go through rigorous product evaluation, demonstrate leadership, and have its customer base interviewed by Gartner analysts. Only 20-24 companies are included in the quadrant. Our reference to that was dismissed saying that our name was only mentioned once. However, every company in there is only mentioned once (if at all). In the interest of helping Wiki be a credible source on this subject, can we arrive at a solution that would be acceptable to you? We want to play by the rules, are willing to back up any content posted, and are not even seeking a pro-AtTask position. However, we are VERY interested in participating in what is perceived to be a credible source of information by thousands of people every day by not being removed from Wikipedia. Tell me what you think should change and I'll change it.— Scjnsn ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
Hu12, If you would have the followed the external link you hastily proclaimed as spam you would have realized the link was not spam, spam in no way. It will require diligence on you part in order to actually read, opposed to simply deleting links and giving yourself a pat on the back for a job well done! If you would have read any of the pages referenced, you could have avoided making yet another error. You are beginning to develop a history here at Wiki of similar mistakes. The link referenced pages, which contained a significant amount of relevant information on the subject. I understand your self appointed role at Wiki must consume a great amount of your time, If you choose to act in this role please try to act responsibly and contribute as asset to the Wiki community.-- Illustr8 ( talk) 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I'm amazed at the patience of the anti-spam editors like yourself. I can imagine myself burning out quickly in a role like that.. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ive got an archive script ready. I just need a few questions answered first. βcommand 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As required by Wikipedia this is a notice that I have included you as a party in my request for arbitration [ [78]]-- Kingofmann ( talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Any idea how to get rid of **** sinebot on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Log? I know someone sorted it on the BL equivalent - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you had blacklisted a spam link. Can you please take a look at this and do the same thing for finmath.com? Thanks. Ronnotel ( talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found these I'm sure there more;
172.134.174.70 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
172.163.205.149 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
172.129.172.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
172.134.128.193 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Make a request on
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist with all the IP's and users spamming the link and I'll add it.--
Hu12 (
talk)
14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you pls. explain, why you deleted this article? For me this was a simple technical description of this product, comparable for example to the still existing article of "Ceritas Cluster Service". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 ( talk) 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"Veritas Software" also exists - and still "Veritas Cluster Server" is allowed to have an own article. This specific Software Solution is even listed in links from the article "High-availability cluster" - so why is it allowed to describe this Software but not a similar solution from Tivoli? What exactly do you think is the difference in the quality of both articles? (By the way - I am BeJost, who wrote the article - but I jsut forgot my password...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me why you removed my additions to Interactive TV Advertising? The link that I added to the external links was accidentally incomplete, but the rest of the information was valid/informative within the category of interactive tv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obode7 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you keep editing out my insertions for InteractiveTV Today? We are the oldest and only publication in the world focusing on interactive multiplatform television and the central publication for the community. The person managing the Interactive TV page should be an experienced member of its community and that person would recognize our publication and find it an important inclusion. Tracy Swedlow 10:40 11 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.37.80 ( talk) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this should not be a black listed link, it is a reputable book publisher. In addition, the entries you deleted in List of Adolf Hitler books should be put back, they are legitimate books, that belong on the list. Thank you. Chessy999 ( talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflicted, agree but without the sales links.-- Hu12 ( talk) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bolchazy101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
70.142.204.227 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
WP:COI and
WP:NOT--
Hu12 (
talk)
21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a personal battle. It seems that you have been offended by the recent conflict regarding AtTask and that you are taking it personally. It was inappropriate for you to blank User:Vpdjuric's user page. Quoted from Wikipedia:User page, which you linked to:
and
Vpdjuric had clearly posted the content on his user page in an effort to draft a suitable article that met the criteria he was discussing with User:Spryde. This intent is noted on his talk page (see [79]). Please do not continue this pattern of edit-stalking and harrassment. -- Renesis ( talk) 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated My.BarackObama.com ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just have a question as to why you prodded Mark Lea Hardy, as well as some other seeming notable articles. The Mark Lea Hardy should not be deleted as he is a highly notable hockey player who played in the National Hockey League for fifteen years. I'm just trying to understand what is going on here. Croat Canuck If I were from Laos, The Laotian Croatian would fit 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a reflist to the public access television article! Uh, what is a reflist actually? Thanks again. DavidWJohnson ( talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hu12. Please see this diff. I added the link. So it is not advertising. Please self-revert, and return the link. You have removed links I have added before, and it was later determined to be incorrect. I find this to be harassment, and wikistalking. I am not some newbie spammer. If this continues, I will go to WP:ANI. Admins have to follow the wikipedia guidelines and policies, too. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact you assert a first level warning (which assumes good faith) is
WP:BITE and
WP:STALK is funny. Have a read;
“ | Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.. | ” |
— first level spam warning |
Nicely covers everything... However, I question wether you critisism here is in good faith or you have other motives? see Impolite spam fighters & Spam-fighting fanatics support Microsoft and big commercial interests-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What exactly causes you to not assume good faith? The fact that I have pointed out these problems before with other spam fighters?
The above first-level warning is different from what you added to Talk:Bar chart. Here is what you added there:
At no point in that comment or on any of the other talk pages did you mention that they could avoid WP:COI problems simply by suggesting links on the talk pages of articles. To a newbie it just looks like incivility and an arbitrary abuse of power. So they don't see why the link they are adding is a violation of the external links guideline. This of course angers many people, as do most injustices in this world, and some people then try adding links from anonymous IPs. There is no wikipedia policy against editing as an unregistered user. Then you go and block a bunch of anonymous IPs and anger even more people who aren't even involved. All because you can't politely explain the correct way to suggest a link and not violate WP:COI. I believe the problem is more on your end and not their end as much. They are at fault, but mainly due to ignorance. So help alleviate their ignorance and try being more helpful. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are a problem. I wish PR guys would learn to show some degree of discrimination. See my comment at User Talk:Oeawiki (and a discussion on my user talk.) The ones I left prod tags on i probably wont support unless here is more info. DGG ( talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you did not welcome my efforts to participate in the AfD on David Howe, or in reverting 'King of Mann' (originally, and appropriately, simply a list of rulers) to the form it held before it was tainted by the David Howe OR. You'll note that CarbonLifeForm had encouraged me to 'be bold.' in talk there. Do you intend to revert all my efforts to clean up those pages? Let me know, and I'll save my efforts. 68.166.235.228 ( talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hu12:
You just reverted a brief list of non-commercial, information-only external links from a microfinance article I posted. The article I posted replaces a much less coherent one that had a much longer list of external links. I have already shortened it, but what is left is links that are useful to the reader interested in learning more about this topic. Brett epic ( talk) 07:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you just trashed an article in 5 minutes that has taken me 6 months of reflecting in the field, followed by research and writing that took several days. There were serious problems with the existing article, including a chronic tendency on the part of every microfinance practitioner in the world to write little blurbs about their own MFI that added nothing and didn't integrate. I have been thinking about how to put up an article that would be immune to this kind of piecemeal death by a thousand cuts. I have discussed this with Siobhan Hansa, who has experienced similar frustrations. This article is based on current research, has copyright permission, supported by a letter to Wikipedia, from one of the most influential authors in the field, and creates a framework that is far more difficult to commercialize. I hope you reconsider your decision. Brett epic ( talk) 07:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok - firstly thanks both for the vote and getting some stuff done on the list, it is great to see some movement there.
However (!) can I get you to take a look at logging. Rather than write it again maybe take a look at the thread here which explains most of it - I have tried to improve the instructions since. It really is important particularly as the list grows. I picked up the background on one appeal on Meta yesterday in minutes to give the link. A. B. then found a whole raft of extra domains to list! You may care to watch this page (kinda watches threads on the whole page) too? If I can explain/help do let me know, cheers -- Herby talk thyme 09:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You just deleted a message from my talk page. Why? Foobaz· o< 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12. I recently made a spam report to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#.blogpost.com. I really think those URLs need to be blacklisted as soon as possible as they are continuously spammed. A new account ( Castspell) has been spamming those links and is an obvious sockpuppet of the accounts I made in that report. "Castspell" claims he'll just keep returning under a different IP. So you might you want to blacklist those URLs I gave and the ones shown in his contributions. The name is similar to mine because of trolling (just check the history on Saturday Nights, Sunday Mornings). Thanks. Spellcast 02:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to urge you to be a little more cautious in your deletion of external links. While some of them are questionable links, many are entirely appropriate per WP:EL. | this one, for example. I do not believe these kinds of edits ( [1], [2], [3]) are supported by WP:EL. If you would care to discuss the types of links that are appropriate generally, we should do that on the talk page for WP:EL. Thanks, Wikidemo 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12:
I noticed that you left a message in my talk area on July 12 -
Spam sock accounts Sparkweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Craigrosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 65.91.82.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) 65.168.148.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) --Hu12 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify the meaning of this message?
It came almost 5 weeks after I had already been contacted and corrected by your fellow editor / contributor Femto; since that time I have not violated any guidelines. In fact, I have not posted any contributions since that time.
If your entry indicates that my account is responsible for any vandalism or other inappropriate behavior, I ask that you remove the message, since my account history clearly shows no vandlism activity.
Thanks - Craigrosa 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Your accounts appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting KQED and is in violation of wikipedia policies. The continued long term abuse of this project includes edits that date as far back as 2 years [5] originating from a KQED Public Radio IP address. This IP alone is responsible for over 305 Edits on Wikipedia. Please don't pretend or act like this is something new.
“ | A Wikipedia
conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a
neutral,
verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict.
COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. [6]. |
” |
— Wikipedia:Conflict of interest |
You've stated in the above post that "we do need to make some good-faith edits to the overall KQED page...". I would strongly suggest against that. Any further violations will result in your account and/or your IP address being permantly blocked from editing Wikipedia. Understand, you have no right to control the content on the KQED page. If you or your orginization wishes to suggest changes to an article, you should do so by using that article's talk page. When making a request please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding. And remember Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world ---- Hu12 03:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said Before If KQED stops and abides by Wikipedia policies (which i believe now they will) i forsee nothing to worry about-- Hu12 07:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think your removal of the Criticisms section of the Prosper page, as well as useful external links, is vandalism. Are you a Prosper employee trying to scrub out any criticisms? Leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.184.223 ( talk) 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You haven't answered this, despite your repeated efforts to delete useful and appropriate information from the Prosper page. In addition, you have ignored my comments in the discussion page of the Prosper page. You sent me a message about edit wars, but to me it appears that YOU are the one involved in an edit war. I added appropriate material, which you deleted in full (along with much other appropriate material not adeed by me). I saw a Wikipedia help page on reversions that stated that wholesale reversions and deletions of other editors' additions are generally to be avoided. Thus, as near as I can tell, it is you, not I, that is violating the rules by your repeated deletions of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.184.223 ( talk) 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12 - I see that you nominated PokerPlayer magazine for deletion and removed links to articles from that magazine in a number of poker player articles. The AFD is probably okay - to my knowledge it is not a really widely circulated magazine - but I think that most of the links themselves are okay and in some cases pertinent. Plus most of them have been there awhile and no one has objected (we are usually pretty good about keeping spam out of the poker articles).
I reverted the links back in, and will mention it over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker so that others can have a look at it. If you want to make a case then please come comment at WP Poker. Thanks. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 07:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you've made a few posts at WT:EL and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this discussion. An IP keeps trying to add a link to a small forum and has since been misinterpreting WP:EL and has now demanded an outside opinion. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 0422 07:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Removing verifiable content just to remove it, after being warned, how is that NOT vandalism? User:MaryPoppins878 is not a content dispute, she keeps removing verified content "just because she feels like it" after multiple warnings. An explanation would be helpful. Irish Lass 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If a new user, IP only, no edit history, comes in and randomly removes content, leaves no edit summary, and you revert that on a page that you've reverted before, is that 3:RR since it's a new IP address removing verifiable content with no edit history prior to the removal of content? I had that happened and reverted because it wasn't MaryPoppins. Was that wrong? It wasn't content, it was more like blanking on a small scale. Irish Lass 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
68.47.105.94 ( talk · contribs) seems to be the same as this one that you blocked. I'm not 100% sure yet, but I find it extremely unlikely that two different vandals will target the same article in the same hour with the same attack style. Just thought I should bring it to your attention (article in question is here. Thanks, Master of Puppets Care to share? 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly thanks. I'll not do the fancy sort of thanks but I'm not someone who would say nothing either. A surprising number of people supported me & I only hope I can come up to expectations.
Then advice. I've been fortunate (or otherwise) to have had the rights on projects whose concern about some areas of policy is not as strict as en wp! Equally on your own at times on a small wiki there is a tendency to make up your own rules & while I would never suggest any of my actions were tinged with rouge.... Specifically on Meta I fully protected closed blacklist archives quite quickly. There is no need for any editing at all and on Meta it seemed people thought if they deleted the request relating to them it would actually go! I have better things to do with my time than revert edits on totally unnecessary pages. Would I get into trouble here for protecting? Equally the log page (thanks) should, in my view, be sprot at the very least as it and teh archive serve as a "mnatter of record" of the requests?
If you do see any blunders, feel free to point them out to me, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw you were trying to protect Young O - if you didn't know the way to protect a page now is to use Wikipedia:Protected titles which makes the name a red link rather than a blue link. –– Lid( Talk) 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
While I am glad that their edits were reverted, an indefinite block seems to be a bit much. Maybe the user does not understand what a reliable source is or how references are used on Wikipedia. And, "Cuba" claims to enjoy the site. Am I missing part of the story? – thedemonhog talk • edits 08:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
For the spamstar which is appreciated indeed. Equally for the prot on the log page. I've done the closed archive too. I'd argue that as Mediawiki pages they are not conventional en wp pages nor should be treated as such for what it's worth. I'll have a go at organising the archive when I can (the next one at least) - to have request for listing and delisting junked together seems odd to me, I'll steal the meta version.
I'm sure you noticed but the poker one is done too. Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu, This is just to ask you. How did you realise that the link that you removed in Edward Luce was posted by a person from the organisation from where the link originated? I had created the original entry and never realised it. I just thought someone had posted a useful link on the said person.
Also that entry was made in June soon after I had created the entry, so it would have taken a bit of your time in tracing that link. Only after you mentioned did I run that IP address and find out it was true. Just curious:-) I am watching your page so answer here-- PremKudva Talk 12:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you had deleted a spam .com site on Meteora and other sites. While I hate spam, the site itself seemed to provide exceptional visual impressions not available on Wikipedia so I left it. I would be interested in your perspective. Thanks. Student7 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
...and screwing with valid edits. What's up? This "spamlink" thing seems pretty broken. -- 71.42.142.238 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondered whether you'd consider un-blacklisting the recent link on The World is Flat article. I wasn't the original poster and have no ties to the sponsoring org. Looks as legit to me as the MIT link already there. Thanks. Barte 18:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#cceia.org__and_policyinnovations.org
I do not consider them an outrageous spammer, and have commented to that account on the Spam project page. Perhaps as many as one half the links they put in were justified, being major publications by the subjects or major affiliations by their very important partners. Not all, of course. some are spam. Blacklisting is probably an over-reaction--and listing their publications for deletion really inappropriate. DGG ( talk) 02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I question the need for the template you added to the article, and you have not shared your justification for doing so. This is simply trashing up a FA with no credible reason given so far that I've seen. Professor marginalia ( talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the archiving since I don't understand what the discussion was that took place. Dirk Beetstra stated to use the COIBot to tell it's use? I don't understand how this is helpful when the spammer crosses articles with taopage and fruedfile.org. 96.224.102.105 ( talk) 08:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a response at Talk:List of social networking websites. You removed a large section of that article and so far it seems as if you are the only editor in favor of that action. -- ElKevbo ( talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hu, I read the notes you left on my talk page on Nov 12. Thanks for them. Because I am new to Wikipedia, my approach to edit the page was not right. And once I came to your page, I saw so much discussion that it was worth spending 20 minutes just reading all previous Q&A here. While I use wikipedia everyday, I am new as a Contributor and I added references to a couple of external sites without first discussing on their talk pages with other regular contributors (this talk page concept has become clear only now). Now I am doing that, and sharing notes on Talk page to get opinion from others. Three quick questions for you to help me with next steps (a)Is this approach the right way to proceed? (b) What if the talk page has not seen anybody for months and the site I want to reference is indeed run by independent journalists? (c) Your note had a link: cutline.tubetorial.com - I never added that. Wonder how that appeared to you? This is my first interaction with people behind Wikipedia, so please bear with me. Thanks. ( Shankar AVSB ( talk) 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
What was the point of this? Videmus Omnia Talk 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Videmus Omnia, is there any point with your continual reversions on that user's talkpage? Have you considered a RFC for this matter? It is obvious that the user is feeling quite harassed right now. Sfacets 06:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be some bullying going on between various users especially user:Ryulong, who continuously adds information to this user's discussion page after the user has removed it. Sfacets 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In regard to this, do I need to explain where I edit on Wikipedia for some reason? Videmus Omnia Talk 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed the talk pages above, I'm not seeing anything rising even remotely to the level of disruption or harrasment. "Pestering" admins is certainly annoying, probably counterproductive, and bloody-well not against the rules. If you're geniunely concerned, that's not coming across in the messages you're leaving. They quite easily read as threats of blocking for thoughtcrime.
Taking your concerns to ANI or raise a request for comment might be more productive. Or just speaking more normally.
CygnetSaIad ( talk) 07:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI The Bloomsbury Spammer is back. Mannafredo ( talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I note that you reverted Lsi johns removal of a discussion on his talkpage (which had previously been reverted by another admin after he had removed in the first place). As far as I am aware contributors are permitted to blank or otherwise remove material from their talkpage, although archiving is preferred. Is there any rule or policy I am unaware of permits a third party to replace messages against the will of the user (since it all remains in the history)? Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed this. – thedemonhog talk • edits 04:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk)
11:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12 - you seem to be putting negative comments about me around the place - could you have a look at my most recent message on the spam blacklist, and try to Assume Good Faith before acting? I don't think I'm a spammer - please have a look at my past contributions. Annihilatenow ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I don't know who you are, maybe you can shed some light on that for me; You obviously have something against my site, you probably own your own JAWS site. But can you use common sense and realise I'm not spamming and am adding links to relative articles, and they're not alot. It is to do with the movie JAWS, the ride, the novel. Stop being jealous mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
firstly I think you'll find not all those IP addresses belong to me, I've only posted on Lostshark and one of those address'.
secondly I am here to help wikipedia and so I use text from my site to add to wikipedia and add external links to my site to help users from wikipedia get more info for what they're looking for. Shall I just ask someone I know to post the links instead? Or will you think those IP addresses belong to me too? It looks like someone already has tried to put my link back. I contribute not just to promote, my site is a non-profit one and is for informational purposes only so I don't gain from it, it's just nice for people to find things easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok bear in mind I have a "Commons" background.... Image:Goldenaxe3.jpg would (I think) be deleted out of hand as a screenshot and so cannot be legally licensed? I know licensing is different here so maybe that kind of thing is ok? Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 16:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry to bother you... you moved the xiulian article but i don't find it in the wiktionary. It's linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism (top right side). Also some links was removed from bottom category of Sacred Sites. What's the process in that situation to clean up that box? StopTaoSpam ( talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed that warning you issued to that victimized user as harassment. Please leave him alone. • Lawrence Cohen 20:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to patronize me. If any of us needs a change of activity, it is the one who has not written any encyclopedia content for a while forgetting that this is the main purpose of this project. Your accusing me of vandalism does not even warrant a response. Please reread WP:VAND when you have a minute.
Your "explanations of of policy" as you called your edits at !!'s talk was mere baiting which could only aggravated the abused user further. Note that he thanked me for removing your stuff. Now, please stop abusing this user any further. He had enough. If you have an urge to post some policy reminders, you are free to use my talk for that. I never take arrogant lecturing close to heart. But the user in question does not need anything of that sort. If you continue baiting him, it will be added as evidence to the ongoing ArbCom case which was specifically prompted by the abuse of the excellent content editor by arrogance of a small circle of non-writing admins. Happy edits, -- Irpen ( talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments on !!'s talkpage as well as the proposed decision talkpage of the arbitration case. I find your approach and comments to be astonishingly insensitive and unnecessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your "warning" was entirely uncalled for and counterproductive. Please leave this exceptional contributer in peace. Paul August ☎ 23:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that your admin nominator was desysopped, but I'm afraid I also found your "warning" to be arrogant and counterproductive. I find your comment to Irpen, above, about "attempt(ing) to suppress...communication through intimidation" particularly hypocritical in light of this message you left on my talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a mediation cabal volunteer, and a fellow user, Ira01, has opened a case involving you, over the article Prosper (web site). I would like to mediate this case, which is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-28 Prosper (web site). I would appreciate it if you would let me know if you'd be willing to participate with me as a mediator. I hope that I can help you solve the problem, and I know that this is an informal process, so please air your doubts if you have any. Thank you. Regards, Neranei (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on User talk:Herbythyme#Blacklist, I really do think all of blogspot.com should be blocked with whitelisting done on an individual basis. Yet another throwaway IP ( 67.55.6.214) is spamming even more new sites. Spellcast ( talk) 02:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
warn User: Right America for his recent edits to Buddhism? Get back ASAP please. -- MKnight 9989 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am but a humble worker (while of course being a hacker of international repute ;)). I tend to copy what folk who know better than me do and that is what I did on meta. However as time went by I learnt a bit to stop my regex being sloppy (I had some patient teachers too). There is a sense in which having the admin tools should not allow people to edit such pages. I've fixed a few listings on Meta now that had unplanned effects because the regex was not precise enough. We really only want to block a particular site by and large and the \b both begins and ends the listing. If you check the link I guess the ending one is less necessary but it is possible that it would be needed. Block a xxx.com without \b and you will get xxx.com.au as well for example which may well not be correct(?). Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
With your expertise in adsense spam, I wanted to run this by you. Webgeek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been posting links to the same "news website" in citations. The site (andhranews.net) is really a directory that reprints news from other outlets without proper references. The site has an abusive amount of advertising including Adsense. The pub for that page also matches another site linked by the user ( diff). The user had previously spammed another site (thisdaythatyear.com). Looking at the source for this page gives an adsense pub of 6158899834265448, but when mousing over the the Ads by Google link, the pub is the same as for the two sites previously mentioned: 4636414695604775. If anything, the user just needs to be encouraged to use a different source, but I wanted to see if you had any insight on the relationships between these websites. Thanks. Nposs ( talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Left a warning for Webgeek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and reverted todays contribs -- Hu12 ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mistakes need acknowledging, where I've criticized a comment of yours. Apologies if I came over too strong there, but I feel very strongly about this. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the link to an author's Lulu.com page as a commercial link. What is the WP policy on links to Lulu? I see it is linked from the Lulu (publisher) article itself (no brainer there), but I haven't yet found a mention of it in any more general EL policies or discussions. Has it been discussed somewhere? Personally, I think it's a bit of a grey area. The site is commercial, but if it is the printer used by an otherwise notable author, and if the author's page on Lulu.com has info relevant to the article, I think it may be worth linking, especially as we link to other author websites that often have links to where their books can be purchased. Hmmm... - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to why you've chosen to label me as "an individual associated with the" Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and accused me of posting "multi article linkspam". Care to explain? Picaroon (t) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12,
I wanted to ask your advice on how I can change the article about AtTask to meet criteria. I took out the sentences I had added about AtTask's integration features since they might be interpreted as advertisements or self-promotion.
Also, I found a number of independent sources that have covered AtTask's fairly in-depth: [56], [57], [58], and [59].
I am also happy to expand the article and include more sources. More in-depth Wikipedia articles like Vpmi, 24sevenoffice, and ProjectInsight have even less independent and in-depth references, yet have not been made candidates for deletion.
Vpdjuric ( talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric
Hang on - I think you're reverting to the wrong version. While there clearly is a COI, the COI version is actually more accurate and neutral than the other. For instance, the company name is IO2 Technology, not IO2 technologies; and the version you reverted to contains a bunch of anon-posted and completely unsourced hostile commentary (e.g. "The unit was apparently riddled with flaws due to an immature engineering set up"). Maybe it would be better to revert further back before the edit war started. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hu12. Why would the AfD template on this article point to the AfD of Worldwide Business Research? There is currently no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TradeTech. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I consider your block excessive, as this was for the insertion of a very small number of links from appropriate pages to useful neutral informational pages at the site of a major non-profit oranization. Please do not abuse your authority on things like this, when there are major spammers to deal with. DGG ( talk) 06:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyplace that offers a simplified explanation of what s/he was doing? I read a very long page and I am afraid that I did not understand the technicalities.<br. /> -- Nbahn ( talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm writing to you because I see you're patrolling the List of project management software. Doing RC patrol, I am accustomed to people speedied for notability saying "but the article about X is no more notable", to which the reply is WP:WAX. But today I speedied Standard Time (software) as spam, and its creator bounced back with a new version, and an edit summary of "This is not an ad. The software exists. It is a project management product, listed with the others in the List of Project Management Products." So I prepared a reply explaining that existence was not enough, we need significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and saying read WP:NOTE and WP:SPAM and WP:COI and so on; and prepared to put a PROD on the entry to give it some time. But before posting those, I went to have a look at the existing products in the List, and having done that I really can't feel justified in rejecting Standard Time (software) - I looked at the first 12 and I doubt if any could survive a strict application of WP:NOTE - certainly seven of them have no external reference except their own website.
This seems more of a worried ramble than anything. I guess my question is: what standards of notability do we/should we actually apply in practice? Would the best thing be to let Standard Time (software) in and put a {{notability}} template on it, and on all the others? JohnCD ( talk) 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Well, what can I say, Hu12. I so appreciate your support both during my RfA as well as over the last year. I probably wouldn't have done this without your continued encouragement (and pestering). I look forward to using these new tools. -- A. B. (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you redirected the article 'Project Portfolio Management Software' to 'Project Portfolio Management'. By doing so, the content on the page has been lost. I was hoping you could tell me why this was done and if it can be undone.-- Tilleyg ( talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Below is a list of published books. Could you please unblock?
-- Usc.ultrageek ( talk) 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't able to participate, I was away from Wikipedia at the time. I hope the issue is resolved. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I deleted a message left on my talk page because it was an unwarranted personal attack. As noted in WP:UP "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages." It should not be reverted. Many thanks, Xcstar ( talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Can i delete it then because i want to put it behind me and that comment you made. Sunder land 06 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
So, hows about it.Thanks. Sunder land 06 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings, he's allowed to remove the warnings, even if he's blocked right now.
My putting Guy's note back once and explanding on it in depth was at least in the grey area of Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments; just putting it back again after he removes it is probably against the guideline on user pages.
We don't need to beat him up with the stuff. He's seen it and acknowledged both posts; and responded to mine. Pushing him into behavior that could get him blocked by pestering him on his user talk page is not good practice on our part...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
See Rickover talk page. As previously noted, Wikipedia's "censure" page is completely irrelevant to this article. -- 24.28.6.209 ( talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Elert for a period of 48 hours for repeated self-promotional spam. When I went back to check/revert his changes, I found that you had beat me to the punch. Cheers, Vsmith ( talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12,
I noticed that you recently deleted the article about @task (the software) and locked the page. I think that @task meets Wikipedia's criterion for notability: "Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s). This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews." Full-length reviews have been written about @task in InformationWeek, eWeek, web 2.0 journal, rev2.org, etc.
After the first [ AfD] debate, I thought the conclusion was that the article should be re-written to be about the software (since the company was not notable, but the software was notable). I rewrote the article and put it on [ my user page] and asked for everyone's feedback. I got a bit of feedback, and after making some changes to the tone of the article, I posted it.
I would like to understand whether the article was deleted because it had the tone of an advertisement or if @task (the software) is not notable. If its the former, please take a look at my user page and give me feedback on how you think the article should be changed. Vpdjuric ( talk) 03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12,
Based on the activity logs of the above page, it shows that you have deleted the article and blocked the re-creation of the article. You have referred to the deletion review of the article, however do note that in the review, it was clearly stated that the article that was tagged from deletion is different from the article that was deleted. After the deletion of the article, i have sought the assistance of some of the admins who have participated in the review by asking them to review the page via my user page. They have approved the page due to it being different from the earlier tagged and asked me to go ahead to create it again. Please review and consider the deletion again.
Thanks Dleewh ( talk) 13:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And a very merry christmas to you, and indeed a very happy new year. Sunder land 06 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion of Incisive Media , but isn't 4 days a little soont o be re-noming it for deletion after a keep? Watching here. Mbisanz ( talk) 08:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion as an experienced editor and I was wondering if you could advice me on a particular issue? Alatari ( talk) 10:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12,
Have you had a chance to review the rewritten @task article on my user page? Just wanted to get your opinion. Thanks. Vpdjuric ( talk) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please remove your warning from Lyoshka's page. There is a thread here regarding the additions, and no one seems to agree with your classifying this as "spam." Mr Which ??? 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had seen the discussion here before staring the one below. If the issue is that the links are tainted solely due to their insertion by a supposed "spammer", why were they removed when I reinserted them. I have pored over the site, and all I find is useful and relevant information about congressional staff salaries. Again, you will need to reference a valid Wikipedia policy that requires their deletion. Alansohn ( talk) 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you recently posted the above AFD which was closed by User:Bearian, I believe, inappropriately. I posted a message (through the advice of the Wikipedia:Deletion review guidelines) on this user's talk page stating my opinion on that matter, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on this as well. I think we need to overturn this deletion and simply warn the primary editors of the page. Otherwise, we'll need to delete all the articles at List of project management software, which I believe would worsen Wikipedia's coverage on the topic, not improve it (and I'm as concerned about spam as anyone). Thanks. -- Renesis ( talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
On several occasions, you have removed links to legistorm.com, a site which provides relevant Congressional staff salary information, without providing any justification for removal. Your changes have been reverted. If you have a valid justification that requires their removal under Wikipedia policy, you must provide that as part of your edit summary. Further inappropriate deletions will be reverted. Alansohn ( talk) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - must have made a "friend"! Interesting - no reverse DNS on that IP according to luxo -- Herby talk thyme 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You recently responded to an ANI report on an editor's addition of a website as potential spamming of a website with images. I've responded on the
report. It appears that all of the images are actually "free" images, released under Creative Commons license 3.0. —
ERcheck (
talk)
04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This user is still vandalizing Wikipedia and/or violating npov in editing articles, despite the warnings we have given. I don't know what else to do. In addition to this, the article Music of Karnataka is a copy of Carnatic music (like a test page prior to the latter article's creation), except it has a lot of nonsense in it. I've listed it under a speedy deletion tag. Could you please help in both matters? Cheers. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just catching up on stuff - can you log the whitelisting, it will make it easier in the future - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all you do. I know you get criticized -- sometimes just for trying to help some other editor when they've gotten themselves into a situation you would've have handled differently.
I think it's in the best interest of encyclopedia-building to consider some sort of controlled removal of legistorm from the blacklist, but I personally cannot support such an action until folks calm down and stop poking sticks in your and Herby's eyes. -- A. B. (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I got the same spurious warning and I think that account User:Macys123 might be compromised so I am considering blocking. What do you think? TerriersFan ( talk) 02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hu12. How about I restore that link at UST Global but as a reference, not an external link? That *is* an interview with the COO of UST Global though it doesn't need to puff sourcingmag.com while doing so. EdJohnston ( talk) 06:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. When you blocked Clinical archives ( talk · contribs), you did so with autoblock on, account creation disabled, and email disabled [65]. FYI, it's important that a user name block for a good faith username be a "soft block" so that they can create another account. -- B ( talk) 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
For the help on the reference fixes on the Howe page. I had a brain cramp. Newguy34 ( talk) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to have your support in regards to that the merging should be done - I understand you are a respected administrator. However I'm not sure to what extent your support extends. All the coaching articles need work - and most of them would not be heavily hurt by merging into coaching since most say little besides "coaching is not consulting or therapy or ..."
I am rather inexperienced in terms of merging articles, and so have proceded with less boldness than could be liked. I would like to make Life and Development Coaching a redirect - I shall attempt to do so immediately, redirecting thus to life coaching.
Thanks again.
--
Kiyarrlls
ton
18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't necesarily disagree with the removal of the ship review links, I just want to understand the reasons. Were they removed because the incorrect link format caused them to redirect to the site's main page? The links were pointing towards addresses such as http://cruisecritic.com/reviews/review.cfm?ShipID=306 ... after looking, it appears that the target site now requires the "www." in the domain name, so if the link instead read http://www.cruisecritic.com/reviews/review.cfm?ShipID=306 , then it goes to the actual ship review. Even with the corrected link, I'm not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia; but removing due to "redirect" reasons appears a fixable issue. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be unfair to remove one user's comments and not the other's. Alice copy and pasted the Help:Reverting article to the Kingdom of Kongo talkpage. Remove her spam. Jose João ( talk) 06:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you this as I am unsure of the WP policy regarding discussion pages about BLPs. User IP 68.166.238.18 has posted a link to a website on the discussion page under Celebrity Friends and Royal Cousins. The link is to a source that fails the WP:BLP#Reliable_sources and has previously been removed from the article itself under that WP policy. Is that link allowable on the discussion page?-- Lazydown ( talk) 14:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hu12 - I have essentially rewritten the HedgeStreet article from the ground up. Could you take a look and see if you feel it still merits a visit to WP:AFD? According to WP:PROD, articles that have been up for discussion at AFD ( as this one has) should not be PROD-deleted but rather taken back to AFD. If you are ok with removing the PROD-template from the current version, I would take that as a "withdrawn nomination" from AFD. If you feel the article should still be considered for deletion, I will post it to AFD myself as a procedural matter ... but I would ask that you update your PROD-reason before I do that so I can properly represent your concerns. Regards, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think he has a strong relation with second breath program from Moldova. That's why his POV to destroy the articles. Ungurul ( talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI: I replied to WT:SHIPS#Cruise_Ships_and_use_of_review_links, I did not know if you are monitoring that page. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my edits of others comments on the talk page. Perhaps it was overzealous of me but it seems to me that some of the comments are directly against WP:RS, specifically the point addressing Biographies of living persons which states, Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just the article space. I removed the reference to that particular website because it isn't allowed.
Further, I'm sorry for "text bombing" the talk page, but it seemed necessary to specifically list why certain things User Heraldic and a couple of other IP Users could not include that reference and why Howe's website is allowed. It has all been repeated to them many times on the talk page and they seem to be ignoring it. It's very frustrating because they are systematically attempting to circumvent the purpose of WP:BLP.-- Lazydown ( talk) 02:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this the correct location to raise concerns about a possible conflict of interest? --Heraldic 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic ( talk • contribs)
Why the hell did you delete my entry in the discussion in the Copacabana article? That was uncalled for. Rsazevedo ( talk) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the intrusion once again. I'm writing you in the hopes of avoiding an edit war between myself and user Heraldic. You are the most senior editor on this page and I was looking for your feedback.
The following is an uncited statement under the heading Sale of Titles, There is no historical evidence that the Kings or Lords of Man ever granted noble titles.
I requested that this be cited and user Heraldic reverted the edit saying, You cannot request evidence that something does not exist. Howe should provide detail
I'm thinking that this statement uncited is against WP:V. Your thoughts?-- Lazydown ( talk) 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
User Newguy34, on my talk page, has accused me of fabricating the following source, Ancestry.com. One World Tree, Thomas Stanley II to David Drew Howe, on line database. Provo, Utah. The Generations Network, Inc., retrieved 27, December When I explained that anyone could get a free trial and follow the names on the pedigree as I did, he then claimed that Howe falsely added his name into the pedigree on Ancestry.com. I explained to him that his pedigree was part of the OneWorldTree project and it was peer reviewed. I think this is in extremely poor taste and opens up Wikipedia to serious libel problems allowing him to continue with his rants and false accusations and deleting verifiable third-party citations. Any suggestions?-- Lazydown ( talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section on history of claims, noble titles and micronations. It seems to go against WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. I cited both as a reason. I know it will probably get reverted by the ususual suspects but the article is really being skewed towards the negative. I've left some comments on the BLP notice board but it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. If it continues this way it should be deleted altogther.-- Lazydown ( talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
To date, Lazydown has not posted the suggested material on the article's talk page. IYO, should it be deleted as a source? Newguy34 ( talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Heraldic's latest edit to the page. He has bolded comments in the reaction to claim section from the Isle of Man government and Buckingham Palace. In his comment on the edit he stated he was "Emphasis added for clarity." I don't want to start an edit war with him but he is clearly adding emphasis to his POV and not for clarity.-- Lazydown ( talk) 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I can not see how Ancestry.com can be used as a reliable source, but in the end, it's for all of us to decide. From a NYT article on the site, "Ancestry.com — the most widely used — is the flagship site of Generations Network in Provo, Utah, .. has free content, including a family tree maker, but also lets users search immigration, census and military records for fees that depend on the level of records sought."
From All Things Digital, "Each person on a family tree has his or her own page with a life-events timeline and the records that you attach to the profile [emphasis added]."
From Ancestry.com's site, "Note: Ancestry World Tree GEDCOM files are voluntarily submitted by Ancestry users like yourself. We take all files "as is" and cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information contained in this database. We regret we cannot assist you in your personal research or prevent duplication of data. Our goal is to provide these user-contributed files to aid you in finding and/or correcting your family information."
Anscestry.com is clearly a "do-it-yourself" geneaology website. I can find no evidence that there is any peer reviewing of thie information. Your thoughts? Newguy34 ( talk) 21:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! I'm curious about the box to the right in my biography page. I've read through some of the edits and the feeling seemed to be that my connection as a direct descendant of Thomas II could not be included because there was no source that could be used. However, the box is marked with the disclaimer "Claim lacks independent verification". It also lists my parents, wife and child, all of which lack independent verification. Would it not be sufficent then to also list my connection to Thomas II given that the disclaimer is posted? Thank you for your time and attention. David Howe-- 70.17.223.254 ( talk) 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
How do I go about uploading the arms and any pictures? And, I imagine that I can't add these to the page myself, correct? Thanks, David-- Kingofmann ( talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I just uploaded my picture, arms, badge and monogram for use.-- Kingofmann ( talk) 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that a person going by "Heraldic" made an edit today noting a possible flaw in my Gazette notice regarding the date of the grant to King John I. In the interest of a neutral article, I address this issue at www.hmkingdavid.homestead.com/basis.html, linked through the news page in the body of the copy of my claim. I'm not suggesting you have to do anything with that, but obviously I'm not supposed to be making edits to my own biography here. Thanks,-- Kingofmann ( talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I would alert you to a recent edit of mine. I added that the sale of noble titles dates back to at least 1615 in England with James I. I added this to demonstrate to the unintended reader that the sale of titles was not a new innovation. I think that is important for NPOV. It was deleted once already by Newguy34 who seems to have made a sport out of deleting my edits. I have readded the statement with the explanation. I will watch it, but I'm hoping to avoid an edit war. Perhaps you could give your opinion regarding my edit. Thanks.-- Lazydown ( talk) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am curious about your designation [69] here that 151.204.231.247 is a Single Purpose Account. Upon looking at the uesrs contributions Special:Contributions/151.204.231.247, i noticed that the editor seemed to be an editor who had just begun on wikipedia. However, the editor had made only one edit relating to the upcoming 2008 elections. He had made many other edits to other articles about other topics. I find the notion that he could be a Single Purpose Account very questionable. Please explain why you added this designation or i will remove the tag. Perpetualization ( talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. As suggested by you, I've put a section in the noticeboard a few times, although somehow, the section on this user has always been overlooked. I've adjusted the title and hope it isn't ignored this time. Maybe you could go through it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock-puppetry.2C_Vandalism.2C_Creation_of_Multiple_User_Names
Thanks heaps. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This image isn't fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.215.101 ( talk) 01:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
also the Jaws part of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Studios_Studio_Tour_%28Hollywood%29 needs to be removed, was extracted from blacklisted site. the text is not allowed to be reproduced on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.215.101 ( talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your ongoing efforts to improve Wikipedia. I have a question and comment. I've noticed that you removed the link to Vuze's official Neko Rahmen channel from the Neko Rahmen wikipedia entry.
What is the standard for the official anime company links to the anime they are licensing or have created? I've noticed most of the anime wikipedia listings have links to companies like ADV, or Funimation, etc. Vuze is the exclusive distributor outside of Japan and also created the only English subtitled version of this anime. In my humble opinion, an external link to the company that is the exclusive distributor outside Japan and creator of the official English subtitled versions is a benefit to Wikipedia -- just as it's a benefit for the many other examples with other anime series where this is the case. Though Vuze is not as well known, it serves the same function as other well known anime distributors.
Thanks a bunch -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manga007 ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 December 2007
-Thanks for responding. This really isn't a big deal. And I don't care all that much but I'm trying to understand this process. I looked over the link you cited and saw that Vuze (also known as Azureus) was cited for creating articles on "Vuze", "Vuze, Inc." and "Azureus". So to get this straight, Vuze is blacklisted for creating articles on itself and now no one can now post a link to Vuze? Really no big deal, but I'm curious to learn more about how a subject/entity can put itself into a position where no one can ever link to them in the future. Seems scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manga007 ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like your 24 hour block of 63.226.228.171 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log) didn't have the intended result. First edit after the block expired was to add the link to ridetheslut.com back to South Lake Union Streetcar. [70] -- Bobblehead (rants) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hu12, when did I ever once use wikipedia for advertising? I have never done this in my life. Your rationale for the block is incoherent in terms of the definition of advertising. Can you please explain yourself? 205.200.244.98 ( talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - you deleted this article for copyright reasons. As he was a top player for Tottenham Hotspur in his time, could you possibly re-instate it so that I can improve it by removing any copyright problems and adding appropriate references. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've created a discussion page for the above article and would appreciate it if you would take a look. Feel completely free to delete this once read... And the Lion ( talk) 11:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In hope that we will work together in the new year. DGG ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:Deferwps has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Richard Ω6 12 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The page copacabana has a list. Me and the user Rsazevedo are having conflicts as to how organize the list (which should come first on the list?)
Since you are impartial to the issue and if you have the time, could you please organize the list anyway you want so the conflict could be resolved?
It would take less than a minute, thanks.
EconomistBR ( talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I took some liberty to arrange it in an attempt to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Hopefuly this agrees with both of you. Cheers-- Hu12 ( talk) 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
EconomistBR ( talk) 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
EconomistBR ( talk) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This smearing campaign and personal attacks of Rsazevedo against Hu12 is Rsazevedo's vengeance against Hu12, because Hu12's impartial ruling didn't produce satisfactory results to Rsazevedo.
EconomistBR ( talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The reason why I added the dailydooh.com site to the list of external links is that, despite being technically a blog, the author is a well-reputed industry analyst. Dailydooh.com is probably the only site that provides specialist cover of the EMEA region. One of the existing external links at the moment (mediadigitalsignage.com) is just a crappy link collection without actual content. Dailydooh.com provides more accurate and up-to-date information, in addition to be less US-centric.
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgbustos ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have read all the comments and I do not understand your insistence on deleting the debunking site about Drew Howe unrealroyal.com. I agree that it is opinionated but itis also valid and researched and cited. If people are allowed to exclude all negative information from articles about themselves than Wikipedia becomes a mere advertising vanity site. Please explain why you think this is unacceptable and yet Howe's claims are allowed to be perpetuated as referenced external sites? The Myspace site in particular is pure self advertising puffery and has no place in my opinion but you find that it is acceptable. Howe appears to my reading to be a lying fraud attempting to exploit people's vanities for money and yet you seem to want to remove any negative research into his claims. Has he offered you a peerage, Lord Hu12 of Creg-ny-baa, perhaps? (;-) in case you are wondering) Dabbler ( talk) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There are now two methods to protect non-existent pages. One method is to use the protect tab on the deleted page. The second option is to use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Both of these changes were made a few days ago, and thus, the old WP:PT was entirely deprecated. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I sent you an email but not sure if you received it. I think an indef block of Ustaudinger ( talk · contribs) for what is essentially a first offense may be a bit harsh. Can we try a more limited block first to see if that changes the behavior? Ronnotel ( talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Had to extend the block (threats disruption during block, page trolling, abuse of tags) this endever would seem to be a big waste of time.-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an expert, but I put an item on the talk page suggesting re-instatement of the link, which you deleted, to Humphries's text on Particle Acceleration. Details of my reasoning are there, but the policy on external links does recommend textbooks, and it does not appear that he is explicitly offering the book for sale. Just looking at the TOC suggests that it has a lot of material that would be very useful for anyone seeking greater depth than an encyclopedia can offer. Not clear if the person who posted the link is the author, but his few other edits seem generally constructive. Thanks Wwheaton ( talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thanks for continually beating me to vandalism reverts on pages like Biodiesel; nice work. E8 ( talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, I do not understand why "Monitor Group" entry was deleted and protected. The reason given is that it was deleted and recreated multiple times. I think that might be because people who didn't know how to create a wiki entry did them. I do not see what is wrong with the article I created today. I put up the article again in the Talk page of the Monitor Group. Please review it and reconsider the deletion and the protection. Thank you. Floralpattern ( talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Please could you explain your reason for deleting all links to heraldry-online.org.uk?--Heraldic 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I based the entry on the articles for other similar organizations, so I thought it would not get deleted. I will try rewriting the entry and check with you. Floralpattern ( talk) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment I had made here has been moved to my Talk page. THanks, Floralpattern ( talk) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain your reasons for deleting all links to heraldry-online.org.uk? (You seem to have inadvertently archived/deleted my original question.) --Heraldic 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 January 2008
I see you have added an EL at Heraldry. Thank you.--Heraldic 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that unpleasant question from my talk page - my pages have had their fair share of vandalism but that was truly the most offensive thing anyone has ever written. Thanks again, kind regards, nancy (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello? Floralpattern ( talk) 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Could you answer my question? If you would rather not deal with this issue, do you suggest that I go to deletion review? Please let me know. Floralpattern ( talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Monitor Group. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Floralpattern ( talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hu12, I'd like to ask you about the delete you made to the article microfinance today, which you notated as a 'spam entry'. Why was this paragraph spam? Everyone who works in microfinance knows that the criticisms identified in it are frequently made. It use references to back up its points. The references lead to the organization (CGAP) generally acknowledged to be the thought-leader in our industry. CGAP has no motivation (profit or otherwise) for self-promotion. I didn't write this paragraph, but watch the page and plan to clean it up and deepen it in the near future. I would like to know what makes this spam, so I don't make the same mistake. Thanks. Brett epic ( talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Heraldic is attempting to include a statement he made under Reaction to Claim, which states, The claim has not received much support in the insular media. Two things, this is his opinion and isn't supported under WP:BLP. And, I have just added an article from the Manx Examiner from Mondays edition that has a favourable view of Howe's claim. I'm looking for a second opinion. What is your feeling on this?-- Lazydown ( talk) 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how do go about getting some things taken off of my biography page that I'd like to be kept out for privacy reasons. Starting with my wife's middle name. It isn't published in any source that I'm aware of. Second, a business I own is part of the biography and the businesses website is being cited as a source and my name is not on the website anywhere. This as well has not been published anywhere I'm aware of and we have received a few nonbusiness calls recently that have come from my biography page. I looked in to some of the policies here and found WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy and it states that "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." And also "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." I've not looked through everything on my biography for privacy but these two jumped out at me right away and neither one of these things have anything to do with my notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofmann ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think in light of all of this, a reasonable solution to these multiple edits, nasty bickering over contentious material, and privacy concerns is to merge discussion of the claim down to an appropriate size, and move it to another article. I read WP notability policies to be fairly specific that if an individual is only notable for a single event, the focus should be on that event (e.g., the claim, itself) rather than on an otherwise un-notable person. Your thoughts? P.S. I have posed this question on the article's talk page, as well. Newguy34 ( talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide page protection to my talk page. User Newguy34 is attempting to besmirch by character and is being harassing continuing to post on my talk page despite the arbitration request.-- Kingofmann ( talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please identify what specifically on the site you believe is "harassment". Note that even sites which violate copyright, if they "clean up their act", are subject to un-blacklisting. A compelling argument should be made if permanent blacklisting is to stand. Wjhonson ( talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand your interest in ensuring spam does not occur - and you are doing fine work. While I, as CEO, personally have a conflict of interest concerning the AtTask page, various others who have contributed content do not. Unfortunately, one of them; vpduric, is not affiliated with our company, but has submitted content very pro-AtTask on our pages and got us bumped after our being on for over a year. Here is my train of thought: There are over 3900 searches for 'Project Management Software' every day on Google. The Wiki page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_software) is #2. Wikipedia should be a credible source of information on this subject. All of the companies listed on that page have wiki entries. Many are not as notable as AtTask. Its true that not many people have heard of AtTask, but all of the industry players have - including analysts. For example, to be included in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for project management, a company has to have significant revenues, be audited by Gartner, go through rigorous product evaluation, demonstrate leadership, and have its customer base interviewed by Gartner analysts. Only 20-24 companies are included in the quadrant. Our reference to that was dismissed saying that our name was only mentioned once. However, every company in there is only mentioned once (if at all). In the interest of helping Wiki be a credible source on this subject, can we arrive at a solution that would be acceptable to you? We want to play by the rules, are willing to back up any content posted, and are not even seeking a pro-AtTask position. However, we are VERY interested in participating in what is perceived to be a credible source of information by thousands of people every day by not being removed from Wikipedia. Tell me what you think should change and I'll change it.— Scjnsn ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
Hu12, If you would have the followed the external link you hastily proclaimed as spam you would have realized the link was not spam, spam in no way. It will require diligence on you part in order to actually read, opposed to simply deleting links and giving yourself a pat on the back for a job well done! If you would have read any of the pages referenced, you could have avoided making yet another error. You are beginning to develop a history here at Wiki of similar mistakes. The link referenced pages, which contained a significant amount of relevant information on the subject. I understand your self appointed role at Wiki must consume a great amount of your time, If you choose to act in this role please try to act responsibly and contribute as asset to the Wiki community.-- Illustr8 ( talk) 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I'm amazed at the patience of the anti-spam editors like yourself. I can imagine myself burning out quickly in a role like that.. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ive got an archive script ready. I just need a few questions answered first. βcommand 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As required by Wikipedia this is a notice that I have included you as a party in my request for arbitration [ [78]]-- Kingofmann ( talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Any idea how to get rid of **** sinebot on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Log? I know someone sorted it on the BL equivalent - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you had blacklisted a spam link. Can you please take a look at this and do the same thing for finmath.com? Thanks. Ronnotel ( talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found these I'm sure there more;
172.134.174.70 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
172.163.205.149 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
172.129.172.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
172.134.128.193 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Make a request on
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist with all the IP's and users spamming the link and I'll add it.--
Hu12 (
talk)
14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you pls. explain, why you deleted this article? For me this was a simple technical description of this product, comparable for example to the still existing article of "Ceritas Cluster Service". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 ( talk) 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"Veritas Software" also exists - and still "Veritas Cluster Server" is allowed to have an own article. This specific Software Solution is even listed in links from the article "High-availability cluster" - so why is it allowed to describe this Software but not a similar solution from Tivoli? What exactly do you think is the difference in the quality of both articles? (By the way - I am BeJost, who wrote the article - but I jsut forgot my password...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me why you removed my additions to Interactive TV Advertising? The link that I added to the external links was accidentally incomplete, but the rest of the information was valid/informative within the category of interactive tv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obode7 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you keep editing out my insertions for InteractiveTV Today? We are the oldest and only publication in the world focusing on interactive multiplatform television and the central publication for the community. The person managing the Interactive TV page should be an experienced member of its community and that person would recognize our publication and find it an important inclusion. Tracy Swedlow 10:40 11 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.37.80 ( talk) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this should not be a black listed link, it is a reputable book publisher. In addition, the entries you deleted in List of Adolf Hitler books should be put back, they are legitimate books, that belong on the list. Thank you. Chessy999 ( talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflicted, agree but without the sales links.-- Hu12 ( talk) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bolchazy101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
70.142.204.227 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
WP:COI and
WP:NOT--
Hu12 (
talk)
21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a personal battle. It seems that you have been offended by the recent conflict regarding AtTask and that you are taking it personally. It was inappropriate for you to blank User:Vpdjuric's user page. Quoted from Wikipedia:User page, which you linked to:
and
Vpdjuric had clearly posted the content on his user page in an effort to draft a suitable article that met the criteria he was discussing with User:Spryde. This intent is noted on his talk page (see [79]). Please do not continue this pattern of edit-stalking and harrassment. -- Renesis ( talk) 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated My.BarackObama.com ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just have a question as to why you prodded Mark Lea Hardy, as well as some other seeming notable articles. The Mark Lea Hardy should not be deleted as he is a highly notable hockey player who played in the National Hockey League for fifteen years. I'm just trying to understand what is going on here. Croat Canuck If I were from Laos, The Laotian Croatian would fit 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a reflist to the public access television article! Uh, what is a reflist actually? Thanks again. DavidWJohnson ( talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hu12. Please see this diff. I added the link. So it is not advertising. Please self-revert, and return the link. You have removed links I have added before, and it was later determined to be incorrect. I find this to be harassment, and wikistalking. I am not some newbie spammer. If this continues, I will go to WP:ANI. Admins have to follow the wikipedia guidelines and policies, too. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact you assert a first level warning (which assumes good faith) is
WP:BITE and
WP:STALK is funny. Have a read;
“ | Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.. | ” |
— first level spam warning |
Nicely covers everything... However, I question wether you critisism here is in good faith or you have other motives? see Impolite spam fighters & Spam-fighting fanatics support Microsoft and big commercial interests-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What exactly causes you to not assume good faith? The fact that I have pointed out these problems before with other spam fighters?
The above first-level warning is different from what you added to Talk:Bar chart. Here is what you added there:
At no point in that comment or on any of the other talk pages did you mention that they could avoid WP:COI problems simply by suggesting links on the talk pages of articles. To a newbie it just looks like incivility and an arbitrary abuse of power. So they don't see why the link they are adding is a violation of the external links guideline. This of course angers many people, as do most injustices in this world, and some people then try adding links from anonymous IPs. There is no wikipedia policy against editing as an unregistered user. Then you go and block a bunch of anonymous IPs and anger even more people who aren't even involved. All because you can't politely explain the correct way to suggest a link and not violate WP:COI. I believe the problem is more on your end and not their end as much. They are at fault, but mainly due to ignorance. So help alleviate their ignorance and try being more helpful. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are a problem. I wish PR guys would learn to show some degree of discrimination. See my comment at User Talk:Oeawiki (and a discussion on my user talk.) The ones I left prod tags on i probably wont support unless here is more info. DGG ( talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you did not welcome my efforts to participate in the AfD on David Howe, or in reverting 'King of Mann' (originally, and appropriately, simply a list of rulers) to the form it held before it was tainted by the David Howe OR. You'll note that CarbonLifeForm had encouraged me to 'be bold.' in talk there. Do you intend to revert all my efforts to clean up those pages? Let me know, and I'll save my efforts. 68.166.235.228 ( talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hu12:
You just reverted a brief list of non-commercial, information-only external links from a microfinance article I posted. The article I posted replaces a much less coherent one that had a much longer list of external links. I have already shortened it, but what is left is links that are useful to the reader interested in learning more about this topic. Brett epic ( talk) 07:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you just trashed an article in 5 minutes that has taken me 6 months of reflecting in the field, followed by research and writing that took several days. There were serious problems with the existing article, including a chronic tendency on the part of every microfinance practitioner in the world to write little blurbs about their own MFI that added nothing and didn't integrate. I have been thinking about how to put up an article that would be immune to this kind of piecemeal death by a thousand cuts. I have discussed this with Siobhan Hansa, who has experienced similar frustrations. This article is based on current research, has copyright permission, supported by a letter to Wikipedia, from one of the most influential authors in the field, and creates a framework that is far more difficult to commercialize. I hope you reconsider your decision. Brett epic ( talk) 07:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)