Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wuhwuzdat (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 18 January 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friends and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PAGE RULES:

• 1) A new topic requires a new section.

• 2) New sections go at the bottom of this page.

• 3) New sections require titles.

• 4) New replies go underneath the post they are in reply to.

• 5) Sign your posts by typing ~~~~. (Sinebot doesn't work here)
  • (please sign at the END of your posts, not at the beginning!)

• 6) Posts must be coherent and civil.

I reserve the right to delete, without response, any and every posting from people unwilling or unable to obey these simple requests._{Per this guideline.}

If your post is in reference to an article, it would be greatly appreciated if you would provide a link to the article in question.

If you are here to tell me you changed or declined a speedy delete tag that you disagreed with, feel free to NOT leave me a note.

I respect your opinion, experience, and judgment on this matter.

I also irrevocably agreed to release my contributions under the GFDL, and that includes the speedy delete tags!

If you still feel that leaving a comment on one of these matter is truly necessary, I ask that you check the edit history of the article in question, and view the version of the page as it existed AT THE TIME I TAGGED IT, before leaving your comment. _{(Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and I am not a psychic, and can not and will not be held responsible for actions that occurred after the fact).}

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bragg

Regarding this edit, why is it linkspam? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

View it in context with her other edits...60 odd additions of links to the same site...pure chopped pork shoulder meat. See also below. WuhWuzDat 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So it appears you agree that this particular added link, in and of itself, is not linkspam.

"60 odd additions of links to the same site" - Hmmmm. I see your problem. However, I am sure there are better ways you could address the problem than simple reversion with an ambiguous and confusing edit comment. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Amanda.nelson12

I do not agree with you that links to interviews with the subjects of articles are necessarily linkspam, and have objected to your level 4 warning to her. She has asked at the help desk for further guidance. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, can I recommend you withdraw the "Only Warning" you gave them? They seem to be acting constructively, so no reason to try chase them off the project.. --Taelus (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You may "recomend" all you want, but as an admin has agreed this was spamming I feel the warning should stand....60 odd additions of links to a specific site was spamming. WuhWuzDat 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He also agreed that the links were not spam, and that the material linked to is useful. I am sorry that you do not believe in supporting organizations such as the AIP which wish to help wikipedia editors and readers. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Yes, they are spamming, and thats because they didn't know the rules" (The sort of thing a level 1 or 2 warning is for), and "Yes, they are spamming malciously and disrupting Misplaced Pages in bad faith." (The thing a level 4im warning gives.) --Taelus (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY towards all spammers..I treat em all the same. I'm just glad this came to a screeching halt, before she added all of her 500+ links. I was quite prepared to report her to WP:AIV as a promotion only account, if she had added even 1 additional link. Further discussion, short of a direct order from an admin, aimed at attempting to persuade me to remove this well deserved warning from the spammers talk page, is pointless. WuhWuzDat 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to reconsider

I also disagree that the links provided were spam, and I also object to the level 4 warning given to the user.

This was not a case of multiple external links being added to one article, but of deep links being added to individual articles - each of which met WP:ELYES #3: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons (my emphasis).

The WP:SPAM guideline is not prescriptive, and it is clear to me that the assumption that the user was adding links in order to promote the American Institute of Physics website is a violation of WP:AGF. Links to these interviews improves wikipedia and WP:IAR certainly trumps any narrow reading of a guideline.

In addition, the purpose of escalating levels of warnings is to ensure that the (new) user is given an opportunity to understand any problems and modify behaviour. Jumping in with a threat of blocking so rapidly is very much a violation of WP:BITE in this case.

Now that multiple editors have disagreed with your assessment and actions, I now request that you strike the level 4 warning and revert your removal of these links. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• As it is blatantly obvious that you have completely failed to read and comprehend the bolded text in my last reply...REQUEST DENIED. Get admin status, and then try again. WuhWuzDat 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Please do not disregard the good faith efforts of other editors in questioning your use of inappropriate warnings on new editors - it runs contrary to the ethos of WP:Consensus and collegiate editing that underpins the project. I am concerned that you appear not to care to differentiate between various types of linking en-masse that may occur; while most may indeed be inappropriate, it should not be considered vandalism without good cause (that the links violate policy of themselves, or the editor has ignored requests and warnings previously). Together with the aggressive and adversarial tone you have taken with your responses, I consider that your actions in this matter are disruptive and I am therefore warning you as to your future conduct in these and all other matters in the next few days - please consider this as a level3 warning; you are experienced enough to be familiar with WP:BITE and the proper manner of interacting with other contributors. As an admin, and as per your comments above, I also request that you redact the warning to Amanda.nelson12 (talk · contribs) and re-engage with the editors with regard to your actions. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As this matter was brought up here previous to your comment, I would request that you reply there, in order to consolidate this discussion in a single location. WuhWuzDat 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the RfC, but acted independently of that process - my remit permits me to address issues in what I feel is the appropriate manner. It is not the case that discussion or dispute resolution is suspended while certain processes are in hand. However, in so far that I have acted, I feel that I am unable to participate in the RfC since I am involved but only after the filing. You, and others, may make reference within the RfC to this discussion, but my input is going to be limited to this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I must respectfully decline your "request" for the redaction of the warning, at this time. My mind is made up on the matter, and unlike Misplaced Pages, my personal opinion is not ruled by consensus. As these edits , show, I am not alone in my opinion. WuhWuzDat 15:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to re-engage on this issue. You are quite right to emphasise that both LHVU and I requested re-consideration. Regardless of status, I believe that anything other than a request is ultimately counter-productive on a consensus-driven project, staffed by volunteers. I still would like you to consider the policies and guidelines I have drawn attention to at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat#Response from Wuhwuzdat, and explain your position in the light of those, as I believe that the project is best served by us finding a mutually acceptable resolution to this dispute. Again, this is no more than a request. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U

I have created a request for comment concerning you at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat, as an attempt to resolve our dispute as politely as possible. If you felt able to respond, it would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion over an edit

Not to be rude, but how could this edit even be remotely considered vandalism? If anything, it was good faith. He added some internal links. What exactly led you to believe this was vandalism? It doesn't make sense to me. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User was previously warned about his blatant overlinking, see , This was not his only edit of his to be reverted as vandalism, nor was I the only one to revert as such, see , For more reversions (not specifically tagged as vandalism) of his overlinking, see , , , etc. WuhWuzDat 07:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think that is vandalism. Please consider using the normal rollbacking feature of Twinkle for edits like those. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)