Revision as of 23:17, 27 March 2008 editHu12 (talk | contribs)91,877 edits Undid personal attack/threat← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:30, 27 March 2008 edit undo7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers152,623 edits Undid revision 201444518 by Hu12 (talk)Next edit → | ||
Line 515: | Line 515: | ||
Thank you Hu12 for attending to ] I understand that you have no objection to there being two examples quoted of straw man arguments. (If otherwise, see question on Talk page.) ] (]) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC) | Thank you Hu12 for attending to ] I understand that you have no objection to there being two examples quoted of straw man arguments. (If otherwise, see question on Talk page.) ] (]) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
==Wikistalker and sock puppet== | |||
Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune. ] (]) 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Stan | |||
You have continued in your harassment, and have now admitted that you were guilty as charged. I have reported your misconduct. You should know better. Indeed, your wiping out my complaint carries with it your admission, and your attempt to cover up what you have done. From your talk page, this is apparently not your first time. This is your last warning. ] (]) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Stan |
Revision as of 23:30, 27 March 2008
Archives |
---|
/Archive /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9 /Archive10 WP:GRIEF m:MPOV |
Wednesday 25 December 02:02 UTC
If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks. |
“ | Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.. | ” |
— WP:TIGERS |
The following is a list of articles currently nominated for speedy deletion. |
I'm currently in the process of re-assessing the usefulness of this tool. It may be replaced with something using the new <categorytree> syntax (although that doesn't have all of the functionality), or it might be deleted altogether. If you have any comments, please make them known on the talk page. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The CSD list is not intended to be used for transclusion purposes. By doing so, you are creating many unnecessary "What links here" entries that administrators on CSD patrol have to peruse on each deletion. Think of the tiny benefit that transclusion affords you versus the large hindrance that it creates to many administrators each time every CSD is dealt with, and you will realize why it is no longer permitted.
See also |
|
---|
This is a list of deletable PRODs. |
Category:Expired proposed deletions |
|
---|
This is a readout of various categories. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is a readout of the current RfAs. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Welcome
Welcome to the talk page . --Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:HUG.
You're welcome. · AndonicO 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! (eo)
Thanks for your help in removing spam from the Esperanto Misplaced Pages. If you need any favors or help there, please let me know! (I'm an eo-admin.) Regards, Yekrats (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great to Know, I've requested Meta Blacklist of that link, you can view the local report Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#legambientecorato.it.--Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
For the help sorting the mission grounds thing. --BozMo talk 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch! ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Help with whitelisting
Hello Hu12, I hope you are doing well. I was referred to a discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_28#Blacklist_of_digitpress and was hoping you could be of assistance. I am linking to a specific reference which is located at digitpress and it has recently been blacklisted by the spam filter. Could you please whitelist the specific link that is located at the Cuttle Cart page? I would like to retain that reference if at all possible. I thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- All set, Its whitelisted. Thanks for the note.--Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page, it is appreciated. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Check this edit out
An intersting SPAM threat if you ask me. What do you think? 156.34.231.56 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here's my thought on that.. --Hu12 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- So that means it's heading into the black?
- While I have your attention. Does the blacklist cover all inter-wikis or just the en-wiki? Reason I ask... a very long time ago I did a cleanup of a Led Zeppelin fansite link which was repeatedly added across many pages by a dynamic IP range. I asked Wiki alf for some advice/assistance on it... the website owner eavesdropped the conversation and basically said "go ahead and delete it... I will just keep adding it". I did a cross-wiki search on all 57 wiks and found the guy's link on all kinds of inter-wikis. SO... being the good Wikipedian that I am... I removed them all :) . Now, every week or so, I use the cross wiki search to find where he's been and clean him out. THANK JEBUS! that all Misplaced Pages's use the same button structure :) . I can't read Japanese, Korean etc... but I have a couple dozen edits on just about every Wiki in every language going just so I can rm this el vio. The user even tried masking his website by using a # & % type character string embedded into the link. Thankfully the crosswiki search still finds the original URL. The website is www.vjez.com. I just did a "global spam clean" the other day. And, as you can see from the latest crosswiki search, The world is still pretty much clean of him. But by next week... he will have spammed a dozen Wikis with his link. Is there any way to blacklist that site Wiki-globally? It would save my tired old fingers some work every work. :) . Although I don't mind serving Wiki in this way. The spammer didn't know just who it was he was p*ssing off when he made his threat eh? :-D 156.34.231.56 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is a global blacklist which is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. --Hu12 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would the vjez link qualify for a global "f**k o*f" on that blacklist? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- One other question... even though I am just a lowly ol' anon IP... is it still OK for me to "clan up" with the Spam Project and put a template on my user page. Or would I be shunned and boo'd because of my "non-account" stance. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- To qualify for the global blacklist (or local for that matter) one needs to demonstrate that there has been abuse, document the abuse, provide the IP's and accounts associated with the abuse and provide diffs to the abuse( specificly for a global listing is providing diffs to the abuse over multiple Wikimedia Foundation wikis). If you look at the global BL talk page, you'll get the idea. A link search does not prove vjez was spammed over multiple wikis, as much of wikipedia content gets transcluded from one wiki to another. You'd have to go and look, document where it was added and by whom. As far as a template, IP's, unfortunatly are not considered userpages, someone will most likely remove it. I'm sure you have your reasons, but you should create an account. Wish you did have an account, because I wanted to give you a barnstar for the "sneaky external link" you reported to me earlier. --Hu12 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- One other question... even though I am just a lowly ol' anon IP... is it still OK for me to "clan up" with the Spam Project and put a template on my user page. Or would I be shunned and boo'd because of my "non-account" stance. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would the vjez link qualify for a global "f**k o*f" on that blacklist? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I do have a user page... User:156.34.142.110. When I am roaming around the University from 1 faculty library to the next... my IP changes a lot. When I am at my desk... like I am now... my IP ... 156.34.142.110 is static... mine and mine alone. If you want to take a peek I already have several barnstars for who I am and what I do. I am also a member of a Wiki Project related to music and it's project template sits on my user page. I even have a sandbox and a talk page archives sandbox. If you need to contact me... I watch this Static IP page no matter what part of the planet I am in/on :D. Thanks for the info above.... seems like a real pain to doc all the spam history. I can just my wekely global cleanups a lot faster than I could document the history behind it. :D . Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, add the template! Left a comment on "your" talk page..;)--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you do ever decide to take an account, you don't need to change much. for example have a look at Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven (talk · contribs) his/her sig is 69.49.44.11 ...--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the token of appreciation. I have been down the account road before. After rolling over 20000 edits with it... and watching a growing anti-anon movement at the same time... I decided that if Misplaced Pages was going to be the encyclopedia "anyone can edit"... then I was going to be "an anyone". I turned down over a dozen RfA prompts when I had my account. I've said it right from the start... no lofty goals... just a humble editor... and I don't need an account to do that. Over 30000 edits as an anonymous IP later... no regrets. I am who I am. Quietly editing in the "purity" of anonymity. Thanks again for the 'shiny'. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you do ever decide to take an account, you don't need to change much. for example have a look at Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven (talk · contribs) his/her sig is 69.49.44.11 ...--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm the owner of vjez.com and I'ld like to talk privately about all this nonsense. Is there any way? (go to my site, there's an email link). I tried to ask what was wrong, in the beginning, about my site and nobody told me (I read the rules several times, too). So I need more infos. I hate to be considered a spammer: I did one of the most interesting and important Zeppelin site (that's what the master of the official LZ site told me + many more) and it's considered a spam ... Cool! --79.30.201.171 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
ukinvest.gov.uk
I have taken up the spamming of these sites up with UK Trade and Industry. I have a role as a non-exec in Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform which gives me some chance but it isn't acceptable for a gov to behave in this way (albeit perhaps inadvertently). --BozMo talk 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for leting me know. Thought that was a little odd for a gov, but hopefully it can be sorted out. Keep me updated.--Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sent you an email with more details. Pretty much sorted I think. --BozMo talk 11:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Shaftesbury page
Thank you so much for locking it! These people just simply will not engage in rational discussion because they know they have only commercial gains. Thank you for protecting consensus. --Curuxz (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It appears the "new IP" assaulting the page is a result of 86.130.11.251's recent block. --Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Re - talk:Iar
Now to give Your talk-page some action!
- WP:WIARM has had considerable support for some time, and is a robust well-written document.
- The NbgDraft is essentially the "12words" plus WIARM, and I am glad that you approve, with others.
- "Understanding IAR" has a lot of support ( and I like it), and, a catchy title.
- I am happy to see a debate between competing essays for the prize of going up on the IAR page.
- Of course, many will want JUST the "12words".
- u:Misza13 has commented along the lines of "you're wasting your breath".
- I am happy for this process to continue, having "fresh eyes" at the discussion page has been very helpful.
- I hope that it is not seen , totally, as MY proposal, it is a generic proposal, and I would welcome others to run with the ball.
- Any improvements, comments, etc. heartily welcomed, (though, if it drifted from WIARM, it would lose it's main advantage).
- For now, I am leaning to UIAR, but the prior "consensus-support" for WIARM may be a deciding factor, or not.
- My computer is from Noah's Ark, sorry if I a little slow on the update, sometimes.
Cheers, and thanks for visiting talk:Newbyguesses, it was a ball. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have drafted over the 'provisional draft' to be 'live' at Misplaced Pages:No firm rules. Is it worthwhile for discussion to take place at Misplaced Pages talk:No firm rules, I prefer centralized discussion at IAR. Cheers, let me know if there's any problemo's --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen this? --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bit of archiving/reorganising at talk:IAR, currently (232,124 bytes) --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that all "merge" considerations can be addressed by adding the 12words in at the top of WIARM, instead of the current 'motto'. In effect, the DRAFT. That is, the DRAFT would in that case supercede WIARM, (hubris comes before a fluff). Then, the See also section on WP:IAR can get cleaned up as well, I think. Are you getting this, or am I off-base? --Newbyguesses - Talk 09:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, adding 12words to WIARM may solve this.--Hu12 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Following on from that, the "merge" debate concerning WIARM and UNDERSTANDING is off-track then. The correct "Merge" debate concerns *merging* WIARM with IAR, is that the go? --Newbyguesses - Talk 11:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, the WIARM edit is wholy seperate. The IAR merge into WIARM is the debate on IAR. Yes they look similar, but they are seperate. Don't confuse them or edit them as the same. I just made an edit to an essay (WIARM), thats all.--Hu12 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving aside that I am a bit groggy, been unwell and not on top of the "merge" debate, compare and compare these. --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Following on from that, the "merge" debate concerning WIARM and UNDERSTANDING is off-track then. The correct "Merge" debate concerns *merging* WIARM with IAR, is that the go? --Newbyguesses - Talk 11:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, adding 12words to WIARM may solve this.--Hu12 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this and the other edit have eliminated ONE confusing merge debate. --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Slowly, but seems there is progress--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Slowly, yes. Now does this look good? The "provisional draft" has not changed much, but it needed a workshop page, I think. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Slowly, but seems there is progress--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You want something useful to do?
What's this nonsense all about? User:VigilancePrime/Archives/Gallery Vegetationlife (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Lip enhancement link removal problem
Hu12, I can't remove awfulplasticsurgery.com and cosmeticsurgery.com links from Lip enhancement article because I get a spam notification page about plasticsurgery.org links (which is a reference). While I think the links I want to remove are spam related (along with plasticsurgery.com and before/after photo blogs and physician referral "associations" ), I'm not sure how to deal with this particular edit. Flowanda | Talk 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- All set, just removed the http portion of the ref link. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks...is it just me and my new Lazik eyes, or do you look 10 years' fresher? Flowanda | Talk 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Link question
Is there anyway for you to... en masse... rm the link to www.digitaldreamdoor.com. This is, essentially, a personal website for music and the website own has compiled his personal opinions into "best-of" lists which, in turn, have been used incorrectly on Wiki as a reliable reference... which it isn't. The site is also a link for sound sample and lyrics and other WP:EL vios. By my last search it appears 118 times on EN-Wiki. Whenever I come across it I take the time to rm it. Do you have the quicky-cleany-uppy tool to rm the links in one quick whoosh? 156.34.231.56 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have the same tools as you. Look in the history and find who added it.. then remove. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, at 118 adds it was probably stuffed in by 118 different people. I was actually surprised that there weren't more of them. I will just continue with what I am doing... deleting them as I see them. I should be done in about 5 years. I'll let you know when I am through. :D Thanks and have a nice day! 156.34.231.56 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looked at a few of the pages, and they were god faith additions, however doesn't mean they all were. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, at 118 adds it was probably stuffed in by 118 different people. I was actually surprised that there weren't more of them. I will just continue with what I am doing... deleting them as I see them. I should be done in about 5 years. I'll let you know when I am through. :D Thanks and have a nice day! 156.34.231.56 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Asia Prez".
Good blocks, we've had enough spider from him. · AndonicO 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Wise old admin advice needed
Hey, advisor on admin matters! Gregor Mendel is in need of semi-protection again due to IP vandalism. See Talk:Gregor Mendel#Semi-protection again.3F. Since I have made content edits to the page, am I too involved to semi-protect it? There are practically no good-faith IP contributors, unfortunately. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Protection due to heavy or obvious vandalism, would never be considered a conflict. If it is a content dispute or edit warring over content your involved with or added, then you want an outside and univolved opinion. Simply having had edited the page in the past, or it being on your watchlist should not be an conflict. I support your decision to protect the page, be sure to add a protection template to the page (I prefer {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} ). --Hu12 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for review. I did the semi-protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No trouble, any time. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for review. I did the semi-protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverting
Why did you do this? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Orange_juice&diff=196989600&oldid=196958577 Graevemoore (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- That was an error, however your edit here, was not reverting vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed not. But I want to know what made you revert my edit in the first place. I would like to know (In a neutral sense; strip the idiomatic connotation) what you were thinking when you did it. Graevemoore (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What to do in case of persistent 'occasional' vandalism?
You blocked 76.169.219.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) for the first time a bit over a week ago.
- 09:54, 1 March 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs) blocked "76.169.219.16 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring)
If you check their contributions they have a extensive track record, and only with the article Romano's Macaroni Grill. They came back today and the mass deletion didn't get noticed for awhile. So... if a 24 hour block didn't phase them (indeed, they probably didn't notice if they waited a week), what next?
- BTW: do people ever publish their watchlists, just for the humor of the strange combinations therein, like Macaroni Grill and Yam? Shenme (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your 2 weeks ought to clue them in that they _can_ be blocked if they continue. Thanks. Shenme (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Should catch their attention and is preffered to protecting the page. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your 2 weeks ought to clue them in that they _can_ be blocked if they continue. Thanks. Shenme (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
RFA
Hi Hu12. I have been asked a few times (which is always kind of flattering so thank you for asking :) but I'm fairly reluctant. I feel like this is kind of a selfish attitude but RFA looks like a lot of hassle and grief for very little return to me. Not to mention that adminship seems to be a fairly thankless role (so thank you btw - I do appreciate your efforts). If there was a shortage of admins I'd be willing to to help the project (I nearly applied when we were having difficulty getting action on the blacklist but fortunately others stepped in). But at the moment if I need something doing that needs admin tools I just ask and it seems like there's normally someone around. -- SiobhanHansa 09:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Advice requested
An editor has been repeatedly adding a link to www.cityoflakewood.org on the Lakewood, Washington article, in violation of WP:COI and WP:EL, and against the consensus of other editors on the relevant talk page (first added late January, but did not escalate to edit warring until last week). As his edit patterns under multiple IPs had already violated 3RR once, I was preparing to build a case to either request short-term blocks on the IPs/user-ID involved for edit warring, or maybe request semi-protection of the article. However, today the user also added the link www.cityofdupont.org to the DuPont, Washington article. This second site is basically the same site, just modified for the other city. The additions of these links are clear self-promotion to me; but as it has spread to another site now, I'm not sure if I should be reporting the links to either WP:WPSPAM or even WP:SBL (I'm uncertain as to the threshold for those).
I would appreciate any advice/guidance that you could provide on these. For reference, here are the URLs and user links:
- cityoflakewood.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- cityofdupont.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Accounts:
- Iarslangiray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 24.19.93.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 24.19.93.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 24.16.129.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
Thanks in advance for any pointers you can provide on how to proceed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ive range blocked 24.19.93.0/24 for edit warring, and reported Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#City_of..spam. If It continues we can lock down the article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you; I hadn't been anticipating you taking immediate action, just pointing me to the appropriate next step at this stage. As you did act, I've taken note of those actions so that I can use it as guidance if/when I encounter comparable situations in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also added (as I'm sure you saw) the info in the discussion thread. The user is sure to see it, and hopefully it will result in discussion as opposed to warring. Thanks for letting me know. --Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you; I hadn't been anticipating you taking immediate action, just pointing me to the appropriate next step at this stage. As you did act, I've taken note of those actions so that I can use it as guidance if/when I encounter comparable situations in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hu12 (talk), I see you reverted my removal of the libel at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DarkFalls#User:Bettwice33, could you explain why you permit such statements as: "As a background, this person has a long history of psychotic behaviour off Wiki, demonstrated on the blog he persists in trying to link." and "He has a son with Autism and is convinced beyond reason that Autism is caused by vaccines. He is also convinced that Amanda Baggs is a fraud - due to the lies of a couple of other people." and "but I'm just pointing out that this person may be extremely dangerous and needs to be dealt with in the strongest possible terms." This is pure libel and defamation.--Appto (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see, no need for kids to be mentioned, ive reverted--Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- He has put it back, for the 3rd time: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DarkFalls#User:Bettwice33 And now in his History area he makes a demand. (Is this level of libel and malice accepted in users own Talk pages if it is written by the user himself)?--Appto (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Better take it to WP:ANI.--Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- He has put it back, for the 3rd time: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DarkFalls#User:Bettwice33 And now in his History area he makes a demand. (Is this level of libel and malice accepted in users own Talk pages if it is written by the user himself)?--Appto (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!!
Dear Hu12, I am humbled and flattered at receiving your barnstar. It is my first! I am truly honored you thought of me. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good work, its well deserved ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Plaxall Article
You have removed relevant information which MUST be contained in the article. You have flagged the article for no reason. All information contained has been verified with external sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop inserting Copywrited material. Also see WP:OWN--Hu12 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The information is released under GFDL, Read the discussion page for gods sake. Read the page the questionable material came from. It has the necessary release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad Faith Threats
Your threats on my talk page are not appreciated. Before accusing me of "disruptive editing", please read the policy yourself, especially the remedies. Nowhere does it say 'get into the editors face and threaten to block him the moment he disagrees with you on a subtle point'. And this is a subtle point. Please go to the talk page of Structured Investment Vehicle, and discuss your issue there in a calm and patient manner. Please do not block me, or I will take action against you. You have no right to escalate things this quickly for such a minor issue. I am not "disrupting" anything.
Wyattmj (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been attempting a discussion, why are you ignoring it?
Wyattmj (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith "Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith."
- Links normally to be avoided
- 4 Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.
- 10 Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
- The entire content is derived from aggregated sources, and is a Link normally to be avoided
- Which makes siv0.com....
- 1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource.
- In addition. Please take a look at the Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.--Hu12 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Help with spam blacklist?
I tried and failed to add something to the spam blacklist. From the edit history you have obviously managed to add things successfully - could you help me? The two websites are hatingaustism.blogspot.com and autismfraud.blogspot.com. Background information is at Talk: Amanda Baggs and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Amanda_Baggs. Thanks, Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Both have been added .--Hu12 (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Natalie (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Incisive Media
An editor has nominated Incisive Media, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Incisive Media (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Gagme Witherspoon (talk · contribs) = linkspammer. He started out as 80.56.152.2 (talk · contribs). Single purpose IP.. single purpose account. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Post on AN
Hi Hu12, regarding your post on WP:AN, we could see if we can get a comment on this, so that such sites can be blacklisted a bit quicker. A lot of people are spending a lot of time to get this whole lot cleaned up, a lot of articles are going to be de-referenced (well, they don't have a reference anyway .. but it may have quite an impact on the status of some articles in the end), and it will aggravate a lot of non-involved editors. There are quite a number of sites out there which have similar practices, and we have seen serious spam from some of them (we know the problem with the blogs, which are difficult to blacklist globally, but ehow etc. also advocate getting money for getting visitors to their site). What do you think? --Dirk Beetstra 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, we talked about IRC earlier .. you could try http://java.freenode.net/ (you need java in your browser for that; try the channel #wikipedia-spam-t first), you could have a look around in our bot-invested channels, and we can have a chat .. --Dirk Beetstra 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say bringing up all similar for comment and striking while the iron is hot is a damn good idea!--Hu12 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which ones do we have (I am creating a subsection below with a list .. will add some when they come around)? --Dirk Beetstra 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
List
- ehow.com: "First things first, in case you didn’t already know, all eHow registered users can write and publish articles on their topic of choice and, through our new Writer’s Compensation Program (WCP), automatically earn extra cash through PayPal." (www.ehow.com/write.html)
- associatedcontent.com
- suite101.com
- lulu.com
- I copied the list to WP:AN --Dirk Beetstra 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Locating contributors
Do you have a site or script that you use to identify who has added particular links, or are you manually searching the article histories? I've been coming accross a particular site that seems most commonly used as a reference, although it fails as a WP:RS (it's a forum for collecting complaints against companies). But, I'm uncertain if it's an organized campain to insert it, or good faith additions by multiple parties who didn't know any better. Here's the site:
- consumeraffairs.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I was going to add it to WT:WPSPAM, but the format there seems to be to include the IP or user names of those who have inserted the links, which is the reason for my question regarding available tools. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Manually searching the articles to see who added..if there are patterns or multiple SPA's...you may be on to something.--Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - I've gone through a handful, and different contributors for each one so far (no SPAs as yet either). I'll search a few more just to verify there's no pattern. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Your reply to my report on 3RR
Hi, thank you for answering my request on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. I'm the one who was known as User:91.12.10.50. You said that this should be discussed on the talk page. However it does not seem to be a very active talk page and there are no replies yet. Could you please advise me on how to get this edit done? It seems that I cannot do it myself because I would violate the 3RR. I tried to post to User:Sceptre's talk page but somehow I cannot edit it (being a new user, I guess). Still, I don't quite see why you declined my request. I couldn't possibly have warned him as I cannot post to his talk page. However he seems to be aware of the rule because he has warned me. I did make four edits but only three of them were reverts, so I have not violated the rule myself. Thank you. --Xif (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. Forcing (edit warring) for content inclusion is not the best means to help build Misplaced Pages. Talk pages can be slow, as this is not a discussion forum or chat room, wikipedia has its own pace and very little is urgent. Yes, you violated the rule, and being blocked is not how you want to start off here. See the welcome page to learn more.--Hu12 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you, but could you please point out how I violated? I don't mean to be nit-picking, but I'm trying to understand how this works. As I understand Misplaced Pages:3RR, a revert is "undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors," which I have done three times, and the rule says I must not "perform more than three reverts".
- Would it be okay if I did my edit again, now applying my newfound knowledge about citing sources that I've read about in the link you gave me? Or do I have to wait 24 hours? I'm not really in a hurry, but I'm worried that I'll have forgot about it by then, and the false statement in the article would remain. I'm only worried about the quality of this encyclopedia ;) Thank you very much, --Xif (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- First edit doesn't count, you reverted 3 times after. 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. People can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Three revert is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy (such as waiting 24 hours to revert you edit back).--Hu12 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- So how can I get this fact rectified? How can I talk to User:Sceptre? --Xif (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've invited Sceptre here.--Hu12 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. --Xif (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not actually bothered whether it's in the article or not; it was 3am, I was a bit tired, and it did look quite unconstructive to me. Seeing as I won't have internet access for the next 48 hours anyway, a block would be overkill. Thanks, Will 11:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like I'm the only one interested in the contents of the article and I'll have to re-add the fact tonight... I'll use reference markup to make it look less unconstructive. --Xif (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not actually bothered whether it's in the article or not; it was 3am, I was a bit tired, and it did look quite unconstructive to me. Seeing as I won't have internet access for the next 48 hours anyway, a block would be overkill. Thanks, Will 11:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. --Xif (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've invited Sceptre here.--Hu12 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- So how can I get this fact rectified? How can I talk to User:Sceptre? --Xif (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- First edit doesn't count, you reverted 3 times after. 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. People can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Three revert is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy (such as waiting 24 hours to revert you edit back).--Hu12 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding of "Next-Generation IPTV Services with Wireless and Mobility"
Hi Hu12, I just realized that you removed the section about "Next-Generation IPTV Services with Wireless and Mobility" I added as you indicated that the claims are belonging a bit under Misplaced Pages's crystal ball or some sorts of the speculations. I believe that the use of my wordings "it's envisioned ..." is not good enough to layout the facts for what I collected and organized. I have rewrite the section and further cited other sources for the facts of claiming IPTV over WiMAX are being realized already by some early industrial deployment such as Nortel, Fujitsu, Alcatel-Lucent, etc. Other claims are concluded and summarized from an IEEE paper - "IPTV over WiMAX: Key Success Factors, Challenges, and Solutions", J. She, F. Hou, P.-H. Ho and L.-L. Xie, “IPTV over WiMAX: Key Success Factors, Challenges, and Solutions”, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 45, no 8, pp.87-93, Aug. 2007
I have added all supporting source in the references for the section I produced. Whereas, I believe it is very important to included this section to reveal the updated trends and future of IPTV with advanced wireless technologies available today, esp. the emerging wireless broadband technology based on WiMAX. I hope you will be ok to keep it or help to polish it.
WikiProject Spam illustration
Love the photo ()! -- SiobhanHansa 08:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stole the idea from User:AntiSpamBot (retired). ;-)--Hu12 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD for PEI Media
I left the following comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PEI Media When you search for the brand name Private Equity International, rather than the company name PEI Media, you get better results. The news references at http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Private+Equity+International%22 seem sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
www.com-x2.com
Just removed a few links to this self-proclaimed free rev-share blogging site. User Onblogger recently. Since it's pretty obvious (at least to me) these links would never be allowed, I thought I would bring it to your attention in case you wanted to do something preemptive. Bobby 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lets warn him/her for now, if it continues we can do more. thanks Bobby--Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I monitored him on COIBot. Lets see what happens. --Dirk Beetstra 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- thanks DB--Hu12 (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
re: User:JSane
I ran into User:JSane at WP:EAR and soon realized that she is a newcomer who is going to need some extra attention. I'm going to try to work with her to teach her some of our ways of doing things - and what NOT to do. Could you please do two things to help me out?
- You posted on her talk page something that I don't understand. It must be even harder for a newcomer to understand. Could you explain to me what it means so that I can explain to her what she should do and should not do in the future?
- If you find any other problems with her or her contributions would you please let me know - again so that I can explain to her what she should do and should not do in the future? Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Heres the full post. these are all related WP:SPA accounts, with a possible conflict of interest. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Donor sibling stuff..
This subject it going to drive me insane! We have three pages.. Donor Sibling Registry (currently a redirect to Donor sibling registry which now redirects to Donor sibling registration.
Donor Sibling Registry and Donor sibling registry both have page histories - as they were both real articles at one point.. (one was a copy/paste recreation of the other).. the page is about a notable website/organization which was the first such organization to operate internationally. They have been on syndicated talk shows and the national news here in the US. Donor sibling registration should be a stand-alone article about the various laws/programs and efforts to register sperm & egg donors, and children born from artificial insemination..
I've been awake for going on 48hrs now.. so I'm not even going to try digging into this until I get some sleep.. but at some point.. I'm probably going to have to do that page history merge.. Just wanted to mention it since I keep bumping into your name in the history :) .. now, time to sleep!! ttyl --Versageek 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree there needs to be a merge somewhere, no need for duplicates. Get some sleep.--Hu12 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although not related, similar repetition are Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery..UUgh--Hu12 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Bda
Hi,
I wanted to follow up and understand the reasons for deleting the Berkeley Design Automation page and its listing under EDA Companies.
We are an EDA company and we would like to be listed in wikipedia. We will conform to the appropriate guidelines.
Thanks for your help.
bda_webmaster
Bda webmaster (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:CORP. Seems its nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Your contributions to wikipedia under Estrada pi (talk · contribs) consist entirely of promoting Berkeley Design Automation and is considered WP:Spam. It is quite evident that your new account (Bda webmaster (talk · contribs)) is only contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to continue promoting Berkeley Design Automation. There also appears to be serious conflict of interest issues. Please do not create articles or continue to promote your own websites on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is removed. See the welcome page to learn more.Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hu12, I created a new page for Berkeley Design Automation following the guidelines and examples from similar companies to ours. I trust that this new entry is acceptable. If not, I would kindly request that you point out to me any changes I would need to change. Thanks for your help, Mick, BDA webmaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bda webmaster (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:New admin school
Great work you're currently doing with improving it. :) I just have one question though; shouldn't Misplaced Pages:New admin school/NAS template technically be in the template-namespace? Acalamari 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was just keeping the template "local" to the school, however if you think it has a broader use, by all means feel free to move/modify ect. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the other reason I felt it better for it to be in the template-space was because when accessing the template from the NAS pages, it leads to Template:New admin school (see the what links here for that template), which doesn't exist. Other than moving the template, I don't know how to fix that. Acalamari 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree and done. {{New admin school}}. --Hu12 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent work. Acalamari 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to tweak it (ect), its based loosely off of Template:Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good to me: the school page for giving/removing rollback will likely be the next major addition to the template and the school itself once that page is complete. Acalamari 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to tweak it (ect), its based loosely off of Template:Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent work. Acalamari 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree and done. {{New admin school}}. --Hu12 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the other reason I felt it better for it to be in the template-space was because when accessing the template from the NAS pages, it leads to Template:New admin school (see the what links here for that template), which doesn't exist. Other than moving the template, I don't know how to fix that. Acalamari 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
User:PowerBeam
Since you caught him promoting his company first (at least the first time he edited with the account), I just wanted to let you know I've warned him on his talk page about his coi and username, but I may not be able to follow up with him due to my schedule. --Ronz (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring!Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Markets in Financial Instruments Directive
You are constantly 'trimming' links on this page which I have been putting up - without bothering to justify these edits.
The links are (would be) useful to researchers, lawyers etc who want to know about this Directive. They are not commercial spam and they all fall squarely within paragraph 3 of the WP:EL what should be linked section. Your edits don't refer to which paragraph of WP:EL you have in mind when deleting them.
Please bear in mind that over-enthusiastic deletion of user-contributed material disincentivises users from contributing material. I should add I am a subject-matter expert.
Posted by Laurencefwhite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencefwhite (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#REPOSITORY specifically. However WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10 applies also. The article need citations and references, not links. Arguments of "useful" do not make for exemption of official Misplaced Pages policy. This conflicts with Misplaced Pages:NOT#DIRECTORY and Misplaced Pages:NOT#REPOSITORY. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Misplaced Pages is not a directory. This stuff does not belong in an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:NOT#REPOSITORY para 1 states,
- "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages."
- So, this doesn't justify arbitrary removal of useful links. Obviously 'excessive' is a very subjective judgement.
- As to Misplaced Pages:NOT#DIRECTORY, which paragraph are you referring to?
- Specifically, the links (among many others) you have sought to remove include
- - reference to the most recent Directive amending MiFID (which is not reflected on the European Commission's main page). This is necessary to understand the subject-matter of the Article. I will work this into a footnote.
- - reference to the CESR MiFID database. Contrary to your implicit assertion, this is not a search engine. It is a very useful database which is the authoritative list of markets, MTFs, systematic internalisers and shares for Europe.
- I must confess I don't really understand your overall approach/attitude to usefulness. Why have an encyclopedia if it is not, at bottom, intended to be useful to the average reader who wants to become quickly acquainted with a subject? --Laurencefwhite (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
David Henderson_(economist) links
I have restored the valid links for this article. What was your reason for attempting to remove them? 81.152.214.247 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that linking is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to link the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note.--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Marvel links
This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Misplaced Pages. --Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I will stop, my bad. However, you blindly reverted a number of my good faith edits, on which I provided perfectly valid edit summaries. I please ask that you revert them back, or that you at least allow me to do so. Just because I may make a mistake does not mean that everything I do is wrong. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Specifically I was referring to the following edits of mine, which you reverted:
fix a wikilink, add a category, put already existing link (which I did not add!) into a new section:
expanding article, adding references:
removed a comment which amounted to original research:
fix a wikilink and remove a word which implied recentism:
reverting an unexplained removal of text:
clarifying what a link is pointing to (note that I didn't add that link either):
If you can explain to me how any of these edits are wrong, I will drop it, but please do not treat me unfairly because some of my edits may have been improper. Thank you for your consideration. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I reverted your recent contribs, obviously those got caught up in it. Please explain why you felt in neessary to spam attack 28 (est) marvel articles then re-add to 11 more?--Hu12 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see links to Marvel's site on many other articles and have added it here and there, so I guess I got caught up in a frenzy. I wasn't trying to cause any trouble. I don't know what you mean about re-adding it, because I don't see where I re-added the link to anything you reverted. The only changes of yours I reverted are the ones I mention above, in which I added no links at all. I'd like to revert those same 6 changes, but I don't want to seem like I'm edit warring. With your permission, I'd like to revert those six once more and call it a day. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I'm not a bad person, I swear! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at your other contribs, and what you say is true. You've have done some fine work on the project. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I just lack some self-control sometimes - my talk page is half warnings and half praise. ;) Well, take care and keep up the good work yourself! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at your other contribs, and what you say is true. You've have done some fine work on the project. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I'm not a bad person, I swear! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Spam in italian wikipedia: Tommaso Fiore and many others
Hi, I don't understand why last March 6, 2008 you did 18 rollbacks (in 20 minutes) on pages having external links to the website of Legambiente Corato, whose copyright policy allows the no-profit use of contents. Since I presume you are not Italian native speaker, I'm sure you have removed these links for some reasons I'm still ignoring. I can just say that the contents of links you removed are of great value. Please, make me informed (also) on my user page. --151.67.101.178 (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your page--Hu12 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on my page. --151.67.101.178 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Michelle Ferguson-Cohen
Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is a page on my watchlist. You recently reverted an edit by JSane. It wasn't for vandalism and it is not obvious to me what the reason for reverting was. I don't see any explanation on the article's talk page, nor on the editor's talk page. Would you please explain the reason for the revert? Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- COI --Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have you actually read her edits or are you reverting just because JSane made those edits? At Talk:Michelle Ferguson-Cohen#Just_for_the_record I examined every single edit that you keep reverting. Every edit is good - non-promotional, neutral, referenced. She actually made the article less promotional and your reverts are making it more promotional. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I asked you if you had read any of the edits you reverted and you responded by adding an unrelated user to your list at Talk:Michelle_Ferguson-Cohen#Just_for_the_record. Once again I ask you, can you point to a single thing wrong with her edits? She has asserted that she does not have a conflict of interest. Your evidence is very flimsy. But even if she did have a COI, WP:COI states "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." She did write in a neutral tone and she did cite RS. So just what is your problem? I ask you to revert your removal of her edits and to remove her from whatever watchlist or spam list that you have put her under. You are violating WP:AGF and WP:BITE and your removals have no basis in WP:COI or any other policies or guidelines that I can see.
- If you refuse to revert and leave her alone, then I ask you, an admin, what my next option is. Should I post at ANI? Should I seek 3O? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- First AGF guideline does not apply in the presence of evidence to the contrary (ie, contribs). Nor does AGF mean that an editors actions should not be criticized. Suspecting that there is a conflict of interest by this person, does not violate AGF given the edit history. I don't expect a block will occur, however per policy Blocking_policy#Disruption:
- "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines."
- I don't think any of us, including you think JSane passes the Duck test. Few people will edit topics (especialy an WP:SPA) in which they have no connection. You've asked for this person to declare an interest if there is one, and that has been meet to with vague answers. Not being Michelle, does not necesarily mean there is no a conflict (relative, friend publisher, ect). 170 + edit to a single topic a newbie (bite) this no longer makes. This is not a not a typical first edit. Nor does the average non conflicted editor have personal photos to upload of the subject, and to do so as a second edit. Little Redhaired Girl Publishing and the book for brats website have the same email as the Public Relations Contact. While I suspect it is not Michelle herself (as jsane has admited she wasn't), there is enough Ad hoc evidence to suspect that this person indeed has a conflict. Your editorial judgment I respect, and if want to reinsert, please do. A conflicted editor is a conflicted editor no matter how "wonderful" the edits may be. I will ask that references added, such as those with amazon sales links, and press releases be omited per WP:RS. --Hu12 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- First AGF guideline does not apply in the presence of evidence to the contrary (ie, contribs). Nor does AGF mean that an editors actions should not be criticized. Suspecting that there is a conflict of interest by this person, does not violate AGF given the edit history. I don't expect a block will occur, however per policy Blocking_policy#Disruption:
- Have you actually read her edits or are you reverting just because JSane made those edits? At Talk:Michelle Ferguson-Cohen#Just_for_the_record I examined every single edit that you keep reverting. Every edit is good - non-promotional, neutral, referenced. She actually made the article less promotional and your reverts are making it more promotional. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm really unsure where this is coming from or where it is going, but since you have undone all my edits and listed me as a "spammer", I feel obligated to ask you about these points you made above.
- "Little Redhaired Girl Publishing and the book for brats website have the same email as the Public Relations Contact. While I suspect it is not Michelle herself (as jsane has admited she wasn't), there is enough Ad hoc evidence to suspect that this person indeed has a conflict." Just exactly how does the company email address relate to me? And what is the connection between a common PR email address and company website contact email and some kind of Wiki conflict? I don't follow.
- I don't have access to any "personal photos" of an author I don't know. I got that photo from the website at booksforbrats.net
. As far as I know there is not COI or Copyright infringement using a public photo from a website. There was no copyright or ownership information on the website.
- I don't regard my contributions, as "wonderful" or "conflicted" or any other subjective assessment, but as abiding by Wiki standards, neutral and as requested by people who have sought citations or requested my input to improve the article. I contributed to this article on Feb 29, 2008 and came back only after I was called to by an AFD post on my talk page.
- The "amazon sales links" were not my contributions nor were they in the article. They were added as a reason for deletion on the deletion page. I debated the validity of these "amazon sales numbers" as a criteria to confer notability, but the editor who requested the deletion was very clear those were his valid criteria for "notability". I felt my contributions were verifiable and had independent sources and frankly were better. He regarded my sources, The Washington Times, The Colorado Springs Gazette or Fox News as "trivial" and I was forced to argue amazon sales links. As a newbie, I found this to be in opposition of the standards I read and Sbowers3 was quite helpful in assuring me that I was headed in the right direction. It's interesting that now someone else's tactics are being used to suggest I have been "promoting" or "advertising" somehow.
I look forward to your response. --JSane (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license". With a source statement of self-made, please explain. the site claims its copywritten. Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of editing this one topic, how are you related to the subject or topic?. If you feel more comfortable disclosing who you are in private, reply to me using the wikipedia email. --Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- JSane if you downloaded that photo from their website, that probably is a copyright violation. We'll have to check on it. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hu12, thank you for not objecting to me reinserting her edits. I think they make the article more neutral and better referenced.
There is one thing I don't understand. You say, "Little Redhaired Girl Publishing and the book for brats website have the same email as the Public Relations Contact." That doesn't surprise me a bit, but I don't understand how that relates to JSane. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. While the article has been reverted to a more neutral and cited article the issue of suggesting I have a conflict of interest or calling me a spammer has not.
- If there's a copyright violation on the photo, there's no problem removing it. That's something that could be brought up in the editing process. But my use of that photo was used as a rationale for suggesting I had a conflict of interest.
- You keep saying that I have not made any other contributions to Wiki, which is also untrue. Though I would have likely made more if I didn't have to devote so much time to this article and defending myself. As Sbowers3 will tell you, as a newbie this experience has almost put me off Wiki entirely. At this stage, I am also concerned that this nastiness will follow me to the other sites where I am contributing and hurt the neutrality of those articles as well. I assumed this was an academic site.
- I still don't understand what this "email address" issue is about either. First of all, the publisher's email address does NOT relate to me in anyway. As for its relation to the article, after doing some research, any publishing house has the same contact email and email domain name as their publicity contact, because generally the public relations representative works for or with the publishing company. How is this business practice related to Wiki? Does this mean we are going to go after Random House or Penguin authors now?
- Since you are concerned about the neutrality of the article, you should note that many referenced and verifiable citations continue to be deleted in a manner that is not in keeping with Wiki standards. I do believe there is a conflict of interest here, but it is not to my benefit, nor to the benefit of any of the other editors listed in the spam list or of the subject matter. I'm unsure why citiations and references are being frequently deleted from this article without analysis, purpose or reason.
- Your request to know my personal identity is worrisome. This is beginning to feel VERY personal. I will discuss its precedent on Wiki with Sbowers3 or another friendly administrator as well as my husband and my employer who I will not disclose other than to say they are academic. Obviously, this is not something that I am comfortable with and curious as to why these standards are only applying to me and not others who have made uncited claims to the article that you have not disputed. --JSane (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- My offer of help was to put this issue of COI to rest privately and prevent any disclosure or embarrasment which can result from a very public checkuser investigation. May want to read Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is in the real world. Did not appear any more worrisome or personal than your asking User Booksforbrats to disclose their identity. Disclose to whomever you like, if Sbowers3 or another of my fellow admins say they have verified that you do not have a conflict and have not used alternate accounts to edit or participate in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, the case is closed. You seem reasonable enough to understand how/why these concerns of COI are raised. --Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did not ask booksforbrats to disclose his identity. Only to clarify that he did not have a COI on the discussion page as per your COI post. I will be happy to discuss with Sbowers3. I think he understands I have no COI here. Does that mean you will remove my username as a spammer? --JSane (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "I'm also would like to know who you are to ensure there is no Conflict of Interest."?? ...spare me the rhetoric... if its verified that you do not have a conflict and have not used alternate accounts to edit or participate in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, the case is closed and I'll be happy to remove the message on your talk page. That simple, we both have better things to spend our time on, lets wrap this one up..agree?--Hu12 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Who am I? I'm a newbie which is why I asked them to respond to the discussion page not to me personally. --JSane (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did say that one of those IP addresses is mine, but I clarified that from the start. Still, I did go back and sign manually. I'm with you. I'm a big fan of wrapping this up.--JSane (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Who am I? I'm a newbie which is why I asked them to respond to the discussion page not to me personally. --JSane (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- "I'm also would like to know who you are to ensure there is no Conflict of Interest."?? ...spare me the rhetoric... if its verified that you do not have a conflict and have not used alternate accounts to edit or participate in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, the case is closed and I'll be happy to remove the message on your talk page. That simple, we both have better things to spend our time on, lets wrap this one up..agree?--Hu12 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. While the article has been reverted to a more neutral and cited article the issue of suggesting I have a conflict of interest or calling me a spammer has not.
Building PHP into a Featured Article
I am currently trying to build PHP into a Featured Article, and I noticed that you have contributed a considerable amount of time to the PHP article. If you have time, could you please help out and improve the article, copyedit it, and peer review it at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/PHP/archive2? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Algorithmic trading
I re-inserted a link to Advanced Trader Magazine, which you'd previously taken out, while at the same time removing an Apama link. The Mag looked fairly informative, and is not an advertizing site - but is not crucial for the article. The Apama link was to a product site. The Mag may be borderline: I think Algo is an important topic, but there's some difficulty getting good technical explanations. I'll trust your review on this. Thanks.
Smallbones (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Magillem
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Magillem. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Lulu
Hi there. I understand that the edits you made to the Lulu (publisher) page were good faith edits designed to get around the blacklisting/whitelisting issues with the URL, however removing the HTTP:// from all the references rendered them broken and unusable. I have rolled the page back so it works properly again. Maybe a better solution to the issue can be found. Canterbury Tail talk 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've rendered the page usless to editing, Perhaps the solution is to introduce sourse other than from the subject?--Hu12 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair point now. I wonder if we can use TinyURLs to do the reference links, or would that just give other people too many ideas? Canterbury Tail talk 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Tiny url has been blocked also (abuse). I'm going to whitelist all the links on that specific page. should fix the issue.;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, good thinking on someone's behalf there. Okay may be best, seems like overkill but may be necessary. Keep up the good work, I wasn't trying to second guess you. Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Should be fully functional now--Hu12 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, good thinking on someone's behalf there. Okay may be best, seems like overkill but may be necessary. Keep up the good work, I wasn't trying to second guess you. Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Tiny url has been blocked also (abuse). I'm going to whitelist all the links on that specific page. should fix the issue.;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair point now. I wonder if we can use TinyURLs to do the reference links, or would that just give other people too many ideas? Canterbury Tail talk 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
TerrorBot
I wanted to let you know that I've unblocked this user so that they can pursue a username change. Also, I noticed that you disabled account creation when you blocked them. Was this just a mistake, or is there something to this that I'm overlooking? Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bot blocked it through the link. Should have just username blocked--Hu12 (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Straw man
Thank you Hu12 for attending to this article. I understand that you have no objection to there being two examples quoted of straw man arguments. (If otherwise, see question on Talk page.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikistalker and sock puppet
Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
You have continued in your harassment, and have now admitted that you were guilty as charged. I have reported your misconduct. You should know better. Indeed, your wiping out my complaint carries with it your admission, and your attempt to cover up what you have done. From your talk page, this is apparently not your first time. This is your last warning. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Stan