User talk:Hu12

/Sandboxx

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

---

Welcome

Welcome to the talk page --Hu12 00:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi & stuff!

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)

My talk page

You just deleted a message from my talk page. Why? Foobaz·o< 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

see User_talk:Tetraminoe#talk_page_spamming--Hu12 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but i can take care of my own talk page. Foobaz·o< 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that your can.--Hu12 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam report

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)

Your deletions of external links

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)

Spam sock message in my talk page?

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 contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links to kqed.org and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be kqed.org related only. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see the welcome page and Wikipedia:Civility. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote kqed.org right? --Hu12 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the sudden interest in KQED :). I was a little alarmed by all the KQED link removals but I looked at some of your (Hu12) external link work and thought it was fine and fair....I can't speak to Craig Rosa's exact purpose for adding the links but he's a respected member of the real world community who probably has a lot of good stuff to say, probably just doesn't know the ropes around here. KQED, being the local PBS affiliate and the best radio news outlet in town, is a major source of information to people in Northern California. A few of those links were clearly okay, a few on the borderline for relevance and reliability, and a few clearly inappropriate per the guideline on external links (in my opinion of course, which may not be anyone else's). It would be pretty normal for anyone in the region to use KQED as a source or external link as a matter of course. Within the bounds of the conflict of interest and related policies, I would encourage Craig to contribute to Wikipedia, and others to be patient with a Wikipedia newbie He's an IT pro so he should know which end is up. Wikidemo 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He should have learned something since his account creation back in April 07. That is plenty of time to legitamately contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunatly the real purpose, as are the other accounts, are for the sole pupose of promoting KQED. see 65.91.82.62 (registered to KQED Public Radio). 305 Edits on Wikipedia, the first WP:COI edit dates to 19 January 2006^[4]. Using Wikipedia for promotion and advertising is 'never acceptable. Links added by these and other accounts are inappropriate per policies WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI. Understand this is an Global english encyclopedia, not a link farm for a small radio station in Northern California. Myself and others are currently considering a site wide blacklist and Ban on KQED as a resut of the continued long term abuse of this project, and the ovewhelming evidence supporting it.--Hu12 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know something I don't know? It looks to me like this user's problems ended in July. KQED is a very important source and a major California institution, as far as I know the biggest affiliate among all the public radio stations and one of the biggest public television stations in the country, not a "small radio station". It's produced quite a few notable - nationally important, actually - shows and documentaries. That's like blocking the Washington Post. If there's abuse then deal with the abusers rather than cut off an important news source. There are dozens if not hundreds of employees and they may simply be using their company accounts to do good faith edits. If you truly think there is a systemic or organized problem with employees spamming wikipedia I would urge you to contact the station directly and ask them to put out a memo on the subject or clarify their account use policy. I'm happy to do that if you wish. I am about 95% confident that would end the problem on the spot if that's what it is. There's no way station management would condone an attempt to subvert Wikipedia. It may also simply be loyal members of the audience, or simply ordinary good faith editing by the rank and file in the course of editing. Feel free to email me or bring it to my talk page if there's any sensitive information to discuss. Wikidemo 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo and hu12, thank you for being understanding. A handful of well-intentioned external links does not indicate "continued long term abuse." We were just novices in regard to wikipedia, and thought we were doing a good thing by adding the links. Femto made it clear that the best way to contribute is through adding original content. That sounds great. Once we realized we made a mistake, we stopped doing it. We do want to contribute to wikipedia properly; one way we hope to do so is through contributing new original images to articles. But we can't do that if we are blocked. (Also, to clarify - we in no way are responsible for all external links to KQED. As Wikidemo notes, KQED is one of the largest PBS stations in the United States, so it is normal that members of the Wikipedia community would cite KQED as a source, link to it, and update KQED-related entries. For instance, your removal of the link to the Josh Kornbluth blog, noted above, was a legitimate link posted by a member of the public unaffiliated with KQED, and as such, clearly non-promotional in nature). Also, we do need to make some good-faith edits to the overall KQED page, as we have some new shows and some shows listed are no longer on the radio. So, please, let's be civil and allow for newbies to learn, instead of crushing them and embarrassing them publicly. Craigrosa 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigrosa (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 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)

HU12, please stop this campaign against KQED. The edits proposed to the KQED page are perfectly appropriate per the WP:COI guideline. An attempt to block them would not stand and would look foolish. You ought to recuse yourself from the matter at this point. You've made some honest mistakes in your interpretation of the matter but at this point you seem to be making unfounded accusations of bad faith, and making a personal issue out of it. Either let them know that you're not going to go after them any further for their edits, or I'll take it to the administrative notice boards.Wikidemo 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are seriously mistaken in your assertion regarding who is operating a campaign. There is supporting evidence of an adjenda on KQED's part and there is obvious evidence of COI edits as is suggested. Perhaps a broader audience in order to review the evidence is whats needed. If they abide by Wikipedia policies i forsee nothing to worry about. conflict of interest guidelines are clear, and explains whats expected. Because there have been many good faith additions by independent established users, it doesn't confer a license for representatives of KQED to WP:SPAM. KQED has been warned many times ([7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]), and have responded([22][23]), evidence they read those warnings and chose to ingnor them. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, its not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. However, links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site is not. see The dark side.----Hu12 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We may want to get some other eyes on this one. I can see that there was clearly a well-intentioned effort by CraigRossa and some colleagues to add links to KQED stories. He admitted as much, and promises he now understands the rules. Calling it "spam" is stretching it because most of the links would have been appropriate but for the conflict of interest. But in any event you and others said they were improper and Craig Rossa seems to have agreed. This is clearly not coming from a single person. KQED is a $50 million+ per year operation with about 250 employees. I don't know if they offer accounts to guests or wifi to the public from their offices. There are clearly different editors who have written in a variety of different voices on different articles from their IP address. It is hard to believe that a large, reputable news organization like that would deliberately try to subvert Wikipedia. It is more reasonable to conclude that these are the occasional acts of individual employees using their accounts. As such it is comparable to edits coming from a university's shared IP address. Perhaps the solution is to block anonymous submissions from that address if there is a persistent problem. But you don't do a long term IP block or put a major news source on blacklist (as some seem to be proposing on the spam project) for that. In any event, it is appropriate for those related to the subject of an article to make clerical updates to the article. If KQED can proceed as any other organization, that's fine. But if people are eager to block them at the slightest opportunity for any further infraction, as you threaten, that's not tenable. There has to be a clean slate. Anything else simply appears vindictive.Wikidemo 06:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very easy to believe that any large(or small), reputable organization would edit Wikipedia articles to their benefit. ExxonMobil, the US senate^[24]Sony^[25], Microsoft^[26] Australian Prime Minister’s Office^[27], and even the Diebold Election Systems^[28] have all been caught WP:COI editing on Wikipedia. KQED even wrote a piece in their capital reports blog^[29]. Listen, I'm a volunteer, administrator and an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, my interests and motives are in whats best for Wikipedia. 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 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

None of those examples are apt, nor would any of them justify banning an entire organization from editing or external links. If you can't accept a statement from an organization or an individual that he has learned his lesson will not break the rules, you are not assuming good faith. That would be unfair no matter who is involved, but if you really think a large reputable public television station in particular would actively game Wikipedia after promising not to do so, you're not giving reasonable consideration to the way organizations work. It is implausible. Wikidemo 07:51, 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)

Okay, wait and see then. Take care and thanks for the discussion, Wikidemo 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing useful, accurate, and neutral info about Prosper?

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)

PokerPlayer Magazine article links

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)

Thanks for the note.--Hu12 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on your page re: the links I have reverted them back based on the nature and method of their addition to wikipedia, dispite the AFD nomination. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.pokerplayermagazine.co.uk--Hu12 08:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Susan Wald

An article that you have been involved in editing, Susan Wald, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Wald. Thank you. LeyteWolfer 16:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Patricia Bruder

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patricia Bruder, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Bruder. Thank you. LeyteWolfer 17:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Need an opinion

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, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll join the discussion.--Hu12 07:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully disagree

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)

Its a content dispute. A lame reason for removal of the content, I agree. but not blatent vandalism. You both are in violation of WP:3RR, and if I block MaryPoppins878 for I'd have to block you for the violation also. It appears to have stopped for now. If its reverted again don't revert back and report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--Hu12 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is, they aren't all the same edits. One time she'll add a person who shouldn't be added. The next she'll remove someone who is still a cast member - that's vandalism - so it's not actual three RR unless just putting the page back is 3:RR even though every edit is different. The user is a strongly suspected sockpuppet. If you could assist. Part of me would honestly be almost willing to be blocked (note I said almost) just to get that user blocked. But again, I thought when they are removing different content each time, it is not 3:RR. Would you mind verifying or at least explaining. Irish Lass 18:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another question if you don't mind

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)

You'd have to assume the user was new so in that case blanking is vandalism, however the user needs to warned^[30] for each instance..and then if it persists (blanking), a block is in order. 3RR occures primarily between editors who have been here for a while, have edit histories, generaly think their revision is better than yours and should have "known beter" than warr over it. Reveting "obvious" vandalism doesnt apply to 3rr, but if its persistant, instead of going it alone, get others involved. --Hu12 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Out of habit I did warn immediately. Seems like there's something up with the weather or the planets, but it's been a wild day for people "reverting" because they want things "their way" and "no one believes them" (over four other sources provided). Not seen a day like this in a while. Thanks for the help. Always nice to find a receptive admin to help. Irish Lass 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. --Hu12 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Proxy user?

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)

Highly likely, I've added a blatantvandal warning. If this individual continues, this IP will be blocked aswell.--Hu12 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA & stuff

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)

Although I don't dissagree with it, full protection may get opposition without a valid reason. Wikipedia:Protection policy covers reasons. I see users/IP vandalize archived pages, so those necessary for refference, I add to my watch list. Perhaps, the argument can be made that the blacklist log and archive are pages are "system administration" pages that need rarely be changed and if modified could cause large-scale disruption if vandalized.--Hu12 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably already notice, but i went a head a protected the BL log, no reason for any one but sysops to edit. Because it won't be on every sysops watchlist, if they need to find a request (ect.) its assured to be intact and complete.--Hu12 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Salting

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)

Its been a while since i salted and the template we use to use is gone... LOL, thanks--Hu12 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I only know because the day before it I had to salt a page for the first time too and had to find the instructions. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking CUBADUBACUBA

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)

This user was reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism, appears to be vandal only account. --Hu12 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than editing my user page, what vandalism? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

More thanks!

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)

YW!. Thought about it more after our conversation, and I agree on that point, mediawiki pages are not conventional pages.--Hu12 10:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit in Edward Luce

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)

If you look at the ip's history, they have been doing this since 2005. Shame on them. It's kind of like solving detective mysteries. plenty of trails and mistakes are made and attempts to manipulate/spam this site, but those edits do get archived in site histories. Plenty of breadcrums to follow. We do quite a bit over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, your more than welcome to participate. ---Hu12 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam on Meteora

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)

have alook at the IP's contribs[31], fairly self explanitory per Wikipedia spam policies.--Hu12 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wrongly blocking my IP

...and screwing with valid edits. What's up? This "spamlink" thing seems pretty broken. --71.42.142.238 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear your IP was ever blocked. However judging from you Talk page, perhaps a review of WP:APR and WP:CIV is in advisable..--Hu12 15:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's start over at the beginning. Why did you edit the Hyman G. Rickover article? It's a valid link, not linkspam, and certainly not multi-article linkspam. I intend to revert this edit for these valid reasons, but find that I cannot do so due to some claim regarding my IP address and linkspam (???). If I sound irate, perhaps I am.--71.42.142.238 15:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't revert the edit because it's called "a blacklisted hyperlink." There's nothing at all wrong with the link, and it is not spam. Your reasons for editing the article, again, would be...? --71.42.142.238 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest against an irate tone. From what I can tell you have four edits to that article[32][33][34][35], none appear related. sorry. I also strongly suggest you read WP:OWN--Hu12 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just deal with the issue at hand, and not go off on unrelated tangents. You edited the Rickover article. It looks like an error. I'd like to fix that error, but find I cannot due to the above circumstances regarding an unjustified "blacklisted hyperlink," which apparently you've created...and in error. Let's fix this error and move on. --71.42.142.238 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No error. However I am growing short on Patience with your tone. I've found the lecture to the article "Thoughts on Man's Purpose in Life" and have added it. Hope that helps. --Hu12 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for restoring this article. I think we're done here. --71.42.142.238 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Friedman audio

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)

Looks like the article has quite few links covering his book, sometimes we just need a few sites representative of a category. Content of the article is whats most important to Wikipedia. thanks--Hu12 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Carnegie Council

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)

Can you please explain why you put cceia.org up for blacklisting? I have to agree with everything that DGG says. I would like your opinion on why this site was added. Maybe I can be convinced that the site shouldn't be removed from the spam list at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. I look forward to your response. Travb (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is located Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council--Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

what Hu12 said just now is right--this discussion should continue on the spam talk page, not our personal pages. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

COI template on Parapsychology

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)

It was per [36], however it has since been removed.--Hu12 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks-it would be a shame to mar the FA before any reasonable cause for alarm is offered. The COI evidence given so far turns out to be completely innocent and didn't compromise the quality of the article in any way.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it wasnt wide scale enough to warrant it. Thanks for the note;)--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of taopage blacklist proposal

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)

The COIBot Monitors link additions regardless or IP or user account. Once either of those links are added the will be logged into this page for taopage.org or this page for fruedfile.org.--Hu12 (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I attempt to remove the existing site links that are in those articles. It is a large amount so I don't want to be considered a spammer even though from how I read it those links are not permitted? How does one proceed now as websites on those articles all have historical case history which I listed? Do I follow up with an proposal again after another edit or two? I just want to know since I don't want to spam fighting spam. thank you.

Post a report over on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of social networking websites

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)

I've already posted my comment. However, I agree the page is better served as a catategory.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Next Steps After Hearing From You

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.