Talk:Asia (band): Difference between revisions
→Fan club link blacklisting: Take a look at the Verifiability Policy's section on "Reliable Sources" and you'll see the contrast |
|||
Line 482: | Line 482: | ||
:::::The material on the asiafanclub site is essentially [[WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)|self-published material]]. |
:::::The material on the asiafanclub site is essentially [[WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)|self-published material]]. |
||
:::::--<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] </font> 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::::--<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] </font> 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::See also; |
::::::See also; |
||
::::::*[[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#asiafanclub.com]]. |
::::::*[[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#asiafanclub.com]]. |
||
::::::*[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mondrago_socks_an_IP.27s]] |
::::::*[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mondrago_socks_an_IP.27s]] |
||
:::::: |
::::::Aside from the obvious spaming and campaigning(see below), the link invariably fails the requirements of our [[WP:EL|External Links]] and [[WP:RS|Reliable Sources]] guidelines. --[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::AB, can you verify the claim that the Asia Fan Club is "self-published" material? - [[User:Shubopshadangalang|Shubopshadangalang]] ([[User talk:Shubopshadangalang|talk]]) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
::AB, can you verify the claim that the Asia Fan Club is "self-published" material? - [[User:Shubopshadangalang|Shubopshadangalang]] ([[User talk:Shubopshadangalang|talk]]) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Take a look at the [[WP:V|Verifiability Policy]]'s sections on [[WP:V#Reliable sources|"Reliable Sources"]] and [[WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)|"Self-published material"]], then look at the asiafanclub site and you'll see what I mean. --<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] </font> 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Accounts/IPsocks used by Mondrago=== |
===Accounts/IPsocks used by Mondrago=== |
Revision as of 00:40, 11 February 2008
![]() | Biography: Musicians B‑class | |||||||||
|
Re: THX "Deep Note" usage by Asia
I still need to find the source for this again (somewhere online at an Asia-related discussion forum frequented by both fans and band members alike) but I seem to recall finding out that Geoff Downes had received permission to use the new "Deep Note" sound in the recording of "Countdown To Zero". It had not even been used in connection with a motion picture yet at that time. The "Deep Note" version in the song is "Deep Note" in its original form. "Deep Note" has evolved a bit over time, including the change in key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkargel (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Former membership of Pitrelli
Asia guitarist Al Pitrelli was formerly a member of Danger Danger.
Album Links
Most of them are wrong. Linking to albums from other bands. nihil 23:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Any More Info?
I see that my stuff was slightly editied. I do have info of most of there albums. Let me now by editing this page, since I go thru anonymous.
proposal, merge
merge Heat of the Moment(very short article) into Asia (band) and delete the category Category:Asia songs (category that lists only Heat of the Moment)--Melaen 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia
Not a fansite. Quotes like "scotching [sic] guitar hooks" are not neutral. Quotes like "Early on the Asia debut produced outstanding reviews" need to include links to the reviews in question (I can't find any. I looked) and quotes like "is known as one of the tightest albums in rock history" need A LOT of backup, which I don't see. If want to make a claim, especially a superlative one ("Greatest", "Worst", etc.), but can't find a web site to back it up, don't make the claim. --Richfife 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
p.s. If you want your edits to be taken more seriously, get a user name. -- Richfife 21:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
p.p.s I move some the previous info to different parts of the article. When you re-added it, you didn't remove it from the new location. This caused a lot of redundancy. -- Richfife 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutral (and even negative reviews) are perfectly valid
If you have links to positivie reviews, add them. Do not remove links just because you disagree with them. As I mentioned, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. -- Richfife 17:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
People turn to these sites for facts, you can find bashing on any album if you look for it, but that is not the overall view of the legendary Asia debut. The Asia debut has topped out it's critics. We are not bashing JP or his era. Brag all you want about how great he is, fine, we are not going to bring him down. If you can't say anything nice please don't say it at all. People don't agree the SGT. Peppers is the greatest LP of all time, but it is not the general perspective of the mainstream world. So peoples opinions that differ from the general view of a classic LP should not be included in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. People turn to these sites for facts, and it shouldn't be a battle between the Payne and Wetton fans, or one era trying to bring down another. Peace out :)
Richfife 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Starts here
I'm not an Asia fan or non-fan at all. I think I have a cassette of the first album in a drawer somewhere. I haven't listened to it in over 10 years. To me, it was a mildly entertaining artifact that got old like almost all music does. I'm simply standing up for a neutral point of view, which means including links to ALL opinions, positive or negative, without favoring one or the other. It is a neutral, verifiable fact that some people think "Asia" is a classic album. It is also a neutral, verifiable fact that some people don't care for it at all. Most opinion falls in the middle.
Does the fact that classic rock stations still play old Asia songs mean it's a classic? They still play "Hey Mickey" from time to time. It's their job. If Progfreaks is an acceptable inclusion, so is Starling. My real name -> -- Richfife 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I doubt Hey Mickey is on over the air classic rock radio stations around the world that play the Guess Who and Boston, but more likely on oldies & 80's stations. There are many indicators that prove the Asia debut is accepted as a classic and legendary album, such as the Boston/Asia winning combinations CD, their genre is compared to Boston Kansas and ELO, (Classic Legendary bands), also, if a classic rock radio station plays deep cuts (non hit's) from an album over 20 years later, is proof that it has been accepted as a classic album. Sole Survivor and Wildest Dreams still get heavy radio play along with HOTM & OTWT on CLASSIC and Quality rock stations throughout the world, NY, to LA, etc. Why do you not hear any deep tracks (non hits) from the Quiet Riot debut or a Ratt LP, or the 1987 Starship LP? This is the difference. Songs like, Led Zeps, Battle of evermore, The Who's, Join Together, Beatles, Tomorrow Never knows, and Asia's Sole Survivor are all non hits that are played this very day because they are considered classic. The album is also legendary in the sense that it is the Biggest debut album of all time for a progressive rock band, It is even bigger than the Beatles, The Who's or Led Zeps debut. Spending 9 weeks at the #1 position selling over 10 million units worldwide. They are also known as phase 2 of progressive rock, leading the way for 90210, Big generator, and others, it was the spark of the dawn of a new generation, and that in itself is a major legendary and nostalgic accomplishment. Do you really believe the experts and prog freaks would include the Asia debut as a masterpiece along with Floyd's dark Side if it was not? When you see stations playing it's tunes and prog experts saying this 23 years later, is a clear indication that the Asia debut topped out it critics and is the more popular view of the mainstream world. It is the general view that should be presented as fact, like SGT Peppers, and Dark Side, not the reviews from critics that can be found about any band or album. Recently Nissan in Japan chose a track from the ASIA debut for a commercial. Program directors & critics have off the bat in 82 said there no doubt this will be one of greatest, along with Skinnerds first and the White album. From it's conception in 82 until today the reviews of it being classic and legendary are there. We are well aware of the bias reviews from disgrutled ELP and YES fans and the critics who were fans of those bands, or fans of progressive rocks first era. But the Asia album won out. Some bashing consisted of labeling the Asia debut as fake, because they didn't believe they or any band can play that polished or tight, but they did, I have the quotes. Bias and false reviews from these types of critics should not be listed in a page that is to be of fact and the general mainstream view of what is, classic rock. Remember, whenever an album sits on top of the world and the US for 9 weeks, and or, breaks up 3 bands,sells 10 million units you can rest assured some people are not going to be happy about it. This should not be included in a page that people turn to for facts.
I'll grant your point about classic rock stations.
Here's a quote from the review you keep pulling:
Asia is a pretty nice album! Out of its nine songs, not a single one is unmemorable. Not a single one is un-elaborated. Also, not a single one is a ballad: even the sappiest, most sentimental stuff is normally served under a tough rockin' sauce, with occasionally unexpected musical transitions and great drumwork from Palmer.
The overall point is that it has good points and bad points. The final evaluation is "Just Very Good" (click on the "Overall Rating" link). Have you even read it?
For the record, I believe that what we are currently experiencing is a rare instance of "Positive Creative Tension". The article as it stands is actually quite exceptional. I don't think it would be nearly as good without our current squabble. Let's not cross the line into open flames (it hasn't happened, I just wanted to make the point.) Also, you keep pulling the categorizations when you pull the link. Don't do that. They're harmless. -- Richfife 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If that's from the article you keep posting that is the nicest thing said, that article was bashing at is best. No I wish not to make an enemy, but the way this article looked a week ago was bias to the extreme. Statements like, Wetton leaving is the best thing that ever happened to Asia, (like they had muti platinum albums when Wetton left) or luckily the Asia reunion didn't take place. Saying that the Astra LP was a commercial failure when it reached Billboards top 60 when a Payne era LP never broke the top 100. The bias and bashing of the Wetton era will not continue, as an entire community is pretty P..O .. If I'm removing something else I should not when I remove the link I apologize, but as long as I'm alive, that link will not be there. Peace out. :)
The concert from Japan with Greg Lake on vocals is available on CD, I own it. The existing versions could use a remaster but that isn't the point of this post. You can find it on Amazon and I'm sure other sites carry it as well. WOlson17
Fair use rationale for Image:Asia Band logo.png
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f7/Nuvola_apps_important.svg/70px-Nuvola_apps_important.svg.png)
Image:Asia Band logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a fair use rationale for the image. Bondegezou 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit war over anonymous edits removing information on John Payne era
Over the last few days, an anonymous editor has been repeatedly editing the article to remove information about the John Payne era. I have engaged the individual in some discussion at User talk:70.167.100.82 and recommended s/he brings his/er reasoning for the edits made to this Talk page. The matter has also been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Bondegezou 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The most recent IP address behind these changes has now been temporarily blocked for violating 3RR. Bondegezou 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
New edits to make last part of article more concise, accurate, and fair
I hope any of you long-time article editors don't mind, but I made some edits to the last part of the article that make clear what's going on. I was very confused as a casual (and recently renewed) fan of the band, and I've been editing other related articles for some time, so I felt like I could make it make more sense.
The new edits reflect the idea that there are two bands simultaneously using (some form of) the name Asia, and the relevant details of each.
Alternatively, I could see an argument for creating a separate page altogether for each band, and using this page as a pre-2006-only history of the band, followed by links to each of the new bands, but I think that would be too complex considering there's not that much info to cover on both bands. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking that the best way forward would be for the reunion line-up of Downes/Wetton/Howe/Palmer, the ones who legally own the name and would be regarded by most as the legitimate Asia, to be covered on this page, but that Asia Featuring John Payne be given their own page as a distinct new band, with a short section on this page introducing them. However, to date, AFJP has done so little that there's hardly anything to put on a page of their own! Bondegezou (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that they're both "Asia", and AFJP is the continuation of the existing band minus Geoff Downes. In that sense, the reunited original-members band is more of a new, separate project. Both bands have huge pieces of overlapping history, that you'd have include on both separate pages, which is redundant... a separate page on "Asia Featuring John Payne" would have to include all of the history of the band "Asia" that "featured" John Payne, which goes all the way back to the early 90s. As Bondegezou suggests, until either band creates any substancial amount of their own history, separate pages would contain mostly the same info. Odds are that a legal battle will ensue over the name "Asia" before too long and we won't have to make any decision :) - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the legal situation has been settled and it's been settled with this somewhat ambiguous solution. The reunion band own the Asia name; AFJP can use "Asia" within that longer moniker but do not appear to be able to just call themselves "Asia". What may more clearly settle the issue in the long-run is whether AFJP can sustain any commercial success.
- The reunion band have been and are active, with a world tour and multiple live releases so far, and further touring and a studio album due. In contrast, AFJP have done considerably less: there's been a live release of the final Asia line-up under the AFJP name, a studio release is planned this year and they would like to tour, but nothing's been confirmed on those latter points. Given what we know of the legal situation and given their relative activity, while Shubopshadangalang's contention "that they're both "Asia"" is correct to some degree, I still feel the reunion band have a greater "claim" on this Wikipedia page. For now, I think it is appropriate for this page to cover both bands, saying more about the reunion band as there's more to say. If AFJP has any legs as a separate, ongoing concern, then I think an Asia Featuring John Payne page would be in order. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with that, but I have serious doubts on how long the legal agreement will hold up... the differentiation between the two bands is pretty shaky as long as AFJP uses the name in a way that basically says it's "Asia" with "featuring John Payne" smaller type that reads more like a secondary emphasis than part of the name. For anyone who's not familiar with the fact that the original Asia are back together, this comes across as being "Asia", which, by the way, features John Payne :)
- For example, check out the "Extended Versions" listing (and cover art) on Amazon [[1]] - they even credit the album as simply "Asia" and list it in with the rest of Asia's discography. It really doesn't work as a separate name, and as far as the general public perceive it, they're both called "Asia". - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Extended Versions is a live show performed by a band calling itself Asia at a time when there wasn't any competition for the name. AFJP now are using that release, in a sense, to launch a new line-up and a new name. The question becomes to what extent AFJP will attract sufficient commercial interest for them to do anything. While the disparity in commercial success exists between the reunion band and AFJP, there's little reason for the former to sue the latter.
- However, this is turning into a discussion about Asia rather than a discussion about the article, so I should probably stop going on now! Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear friends,
There are moderators that are favor the John Payne era here and there is a history of that on this site. There were previous statements in regard to the failed reunion in 99 such as "luckily it did not take place".
Today I was informed that the bands online fan club was removed when it was put back into the order it was. For the longest time the site was underneath the official reunion site. It was there before John Payne's ASIA site and before the my space page.
No sites were removed, we did not disrespect anyone.
Our site was disrespected in two ways, one it was removed from which the order it was placed. When it was put back into the #2 position where it was, someone then decided to delete the website.
I am the President of the ASIA fan club and my site is authorized by ASIA's manager.
This fan club is an important part of ASIA, as John Wetton and Geoff Downes had a chat there in the fall of 2005. If this needs to added to the article, please add it..
We are currently in negotiation for a chat with the band before the launch of the new LP.
So the site is very important for interactivity with the band itself, and fans need to informed of such events.
The site contains fans that played a very important part of the reformation of the original line up. As John Wetton said in the VH1 classic interview in regard to the reunion being fan driven "we knew there was enthusiasm coming from certain quarters".
It was I who received the phone call from management to announce the reunion news.
We look not for a debate, but what is right.
I have over 20000 fans in my newsletter that will come here to edit this. If we meet any resistance we will file a lawsuit for emotional stress and discrimination and deformation (as it was reported that we loaded SPAM by loading the Authorized ASIA Fan Club to Wikipedia) and sue personally those who edited out this important authorized site and this will go to the Arbitration Committee
It is my wish to settle this fairly, friendly and in an adult type manner. We do have long history of resistance, and I have already contacted an attorney.
This website, is listed in the official ASIA biography with the other official sites on the final page of the book. That's how important this club is, is that a spam link IN THE OFFICAL BIOGRAPHY?
I certainly hope this ends in friendship.
But we are prepared.
Sincerely,
Sole
President of The Authorized ASIA Fan Club
External links dispute
Some sort of edit war has erupted over inclusion of two external links, one to the Authorized ASIA Fan Club and the other to the band's official MySpace page. Both links have long been on the page and, personally, I believe both are justifiable under WP:EL policy. To the President of the Fan Club: I'm not certain you quite understand how Wikipedia works, but the way forward is to discuss the edits on this page, not to get the newsletters subscribers to all keep making the same edit. Threats of legal action do not appear helpful to me. To those who object to these links: could you give a longer rationale for your objection? Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
My own rationale in favour of the links is as follows. While WP:EL is skeptical of links to MySpace, in this context we have an unquestionably notable band with an official presence on MySpace. In that context, I think WP:EL's "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." trumps concerns around MySpace. I also feel that criterion covers authorised fan clubs, and that is how it has been interpreted on several other musical acts' articles. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
A message from the Club President:
Sorry this had to happen, but I was called a spammer, define spam? Is spam a site that was on the Wiki article until I decided to move back to it's #2 slot? First of all I appreciate the response, the best way to settle things is through calm reasoning. It would be a different story if the link was added yesterday, and if I was spamming.
What happened was that ASIA Fan Club was always listed there. Two others sites were added to the external links this year, but they not take their place in line. They moved our link to the 4th slot. So I edited the ASIA fan club back to it's original slot, WITH AN EXPLANATION, first in line, to be fair. I did not remove the other sites. So this would have never happened had I left it in the 4th position in the external links section where it was yesterday morning. It would still be there now had I not put it back to #2. Then it was my site that was taken out only for about the first 3 hours of the war, then they decided to remove the my space page as well. Our site is not some yahoo fan site, it the endorsed management authorized ASIA fan club that reports official ASIA news and press release information. We are listed in the official ASIA biography with only about 5 other official links. That is not spam. We have held a worldwide chat with John Wetton and Geoff Downes after the reunion news announcement. This information of the worldwide chat was deleted from the article. It is important because I am in touch with management to hold another worldwide chat with members of ASIA before the launch of the new tour and new album. So the site is extremely important to ASIA fans that turn to Wikipedia for information to know about such events as worldwide chats with ASIA. We also have the ASIA forum, the reunion site, (the main headquarters for the original band) does not. We handle the majority of fan interactivity. If the truth had to be told, there are political reasons why this happened, those from the other era have infiltrated as moderators here at Wikipedia. There has been a long history of war between these two eras of ASIA. This was Bias, and discriminative.
It happened because I moved it in front of the ASIA featuring John Payne link. That is a recent site, my site was there first. I explained that in the initial edit, that comment disappeared from the history edit link on top of the page. This proves a bias from the other ara.
Thank you for the calm reasonable response, it is my wish to settle this in a friendly manner.
Please lift the ban and allow us to edit the The authorized fan club back into the place it was before I moved it back to the #2 slot. As you stated, this link was there for a long time. Was it SPAM THEN... WHY NOW>>> WHY NOW? Why?............ IT SUDDENLY BECAME SPAM WHEN I MOVED IT IN FRONT OF THE JP ERA SITE... WE WERE THERE 1st...THIS HAPPENED because it was moved in front of the new JP era link. Who had the right to bully their site and push mine down to #4?
Sincerely, ASIA Fan Club President
- Is the Club Official. Ether way you are being investigated for Sock puppetry. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what's going on here... there's absolutely no reason to remove and blacklist this site. If this is some kind of Asia vs. John Payne rivalry, then just list it as the "Asia Reunion" fan club and get over it... the link has been there for a long time and is clearly legitimate. I tried to add it back in myself, but got a "spam" warning (and I have no idea how to change that). - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection removed
I have lifted the semi-protection as a talk page discussion is ensuing and it is no longer needed as Nakon (talk · contribs) has blacklisted the problematic link. If a consensus is achieved to include the link, then an interested party should ask Nakon to reverse the blacklisting. CIreland (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
From the ASIA Fan Club President.
- If mistakes were made on my part they were done inadvertently, I sincerely apologize.
- One mistake caused other mistakes, and it was not me who made the initial mistake. The initial mistake was calling me names, a spammer, calling my site a spam site, blacklisted. All we did was put the site back into the place in line where it was.
- Shubopshadangalang or CIreland, please contact Nakon the remove the blacklist and replace the link. :Again it is not me that started this, if mistakes were after THE FACT, I apologize. We would be willing to go to #3 on the external links list.
- This all about the long war between the two eras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.30 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I have no interest or opinion on the matter in dispute. My only interest here is to prevent unacceptable behaviour. Attempting to strong-arm a contentious external link into the article by using multiple accounts is unacceptable. Discuss the issue on this page and come to a consensus on whether the link is appropriate or not. CIreland (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The External links section is for adding links that enhance/add/support content already in the article. WP:EL is in place to lay down a solid policy for what isn't required on Wikipedia. If a link doesn't add anything to the article... that isn't already in the article... then it's a WP:EL vio. And the fanclub link adds nothing that isn't already available in the article. Authorisation means absolutely nothing on Wikipedia. Fanclubs/Fansites/MySpace... they are all frowned upon and are scarce. To assist Wikipedia in achieving it's goal of being respected resource... instead of struggling to replace an un-req'd link in this article... spend your energies removing the few fanclub/fansite/MySpace links from as many other Wiki pages as you can. It would be a great help. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
From the President of the ASIA Fan Club!
Then why did it take the moving of the link from the 4th position to the second for this to suddenly be realized. If I didn't move it move it back to the #2 slot it would still be there now. This happened because of bias discrimination from Payne era fans that became moderators here, and they saw me put the link in front of that one, for my explanation that mine was there first. You want to tell me if I looked around every artists website on Wiki all I will see is the main headquarters link? It says external links not link. The club was there before that and it is important that Wiki readers know of on line chats with members of ASIA and other official press relase info in regard to fan interactivity. What is more the article did reference the club, it said John Wetton and Geoff Downes had a chat there with it's fans before the launch of the tour, and was removed also. I wish this to not get to the next level. The site is an official news source press release outlet as well and it is listed in the official biography. I will fight this to my death! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.149 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who's a John Payne fan? I know I'm not. I think this whole "Asia featuring John Payne" division in the article is nonsense. This is an article about "Asia" not "Asia featuring John Payne". If this Asia featuring John Payne band is that notable then it should have an article of its own. Similar to the Wishbone Ash situation where the "riding-coattails" "Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash" has a separate article rather than clutter up the page for the actual Wishbone Ash band. This "Asia featuring John Payne" content should be reduced to a short footnote and a link in the See also section... and thats it. The title of the page is Asia (band). It should not contain any superfluity about associated acts, side-projects or acts simply cashing in on previous connection. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Open Directory Project or DMOZ links are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. If anyone is all hot n bothered to get some free advertising out of Wikipedia all they have to do is get their website listed on the DMOZ link list and then come back here and add a properly formatted {DMOZ} template to this article. Lots of other pages use them. Deep Purple, Iron Maiden and Motorhead spring to mind. Motorhead is a Featured Article and it's External links section is uncluttered by fanspam. The DMOZ link covers it all. Hope that helps. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who's a John Payne fan? I know I'm not. I think this whole "Asia featuring John Payne" division in the article is nonsense. This is an article about "Asia" not "Asia featuring John Payne". If this Asia featuring John Payne band is that notable then it should have an article of its own. Similar to the Wishbone Ash situation where the "riding-coattails" "Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash" has a separate article rather than clutter up the page for the actual Wishbone Ash band. This "Asia featuring John Payne" content should be reduced to a short footnote and a link in the See also section... and thats it. The title of the page is Asia (band). It should not contain any superfluity about associated acts, side-projects or acts simply cashing in on previous connection. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
From the ASIA Fan Club President Yea... cut me a break OK... want to talk discrimination... go to the Van halen page here on Wiki, what about Britney Spears, Air Supply.... are there any links there that are not official headquarter sites? I believe there is an Unofficial site at VH, mine is the authorized fan club listed in the biography. I can give 1000 links by tomorrow night that have such examples. Treat them all like that or let my site back into the external links. Now were talking discrimination. The worldwide wide chat with John Wetton and Geoff Downes before the launch of the tour is important news and an event worthy of repoerting, that was removed also, we know what is going here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.127.202 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes we do. It's called encyclopedia building. Feel free to go to any music related article and remove any sites that violate WP:EL. And feel free to add a DMOZ link here. And feel free to delete any mention of "Asia Featuring John Payne"... as long as you create a separate article to move the stuff into. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA Fan Club President States Nice try to cloak yourself with the last JP comment. Me remove... I don't feel those sites have to be removed. You're the big cowboy removing my site, YOU GO REMOVE THEM AS WELL, I'LL HAVE 1000 sites like that, and another 1000 by the end of the week, why you just removing my site....picking on ASIA's Fan club and fighting me tooth and nail on this, why do you have such a vested interest in seeing my site removed? I'm glad everyone is seeing this.
More paranoia than a Democratic Party convention. If you are going to remove 1000 fansites by the end of the week then, on behalf of Wikipedia, thank you. It's certainly a challenge. Wikipedia is overloaded with WP:EL policy vios. Taking on such a great task as deleting 1000 fansites in less then a week would earn you a Barnstar. True Wikipedian dedication. 156.34.211.169 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA FAN CLUB PRESIDENT STATES...
No YOU ... You're the big cowboy removing my..... start here
Steely Dan Dokken John Lennon Paul McCartney Supertramp The Beatles The KINKS FAN CLUB WEBSITE
You're dead to rights wrong and singling out ASIA fan club and we all see it! Unbias moderators please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.91 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA FAN CLUB PRESIDENT STATES...
He is actually going around and deleting those links...
Hey don't forget Bon Jovi.... Be back here tomorrow with many more, I have a lot of work for you. This is how far he is going to see my site off.
There is going to be wars all over the place, and people are going to edit those back in, someone has to put and end to this guy now. Hey don't forget Donna Summer Steve Howe
Go to the Former Presidents site too! President Clinton There is a lot of links there.
Robert Plant Led Zep too Hey
I'll have a lot more for you tomorrow.... He is going to turn Wikipedia into a hell hole because he wants to win win this debate. When it is clear that he is dead wrong. Almost every site has these listed.
Me and my friend are going to spend 5 hours a night seeing every site that external links that are not main headquaters sites. If they are put back, lets see if he shows that kind of consistant drive to keep these links off as he did mine when these people replace them.
If the moderators agree with what this guy is doing... then join him in removing "every" external link that is not the main head quarters site on "every" Weikipedia site, or see this for what it is and end it now.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.121 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA FAN CLUB PRESIDENT STATES... What about all these sites, why didn't he notice these, I make one change to the ASIA wiki site and jumped all over it like a fly on dung?
And I remind everyone I did not add the site, I put it front of the JP era site becase mine was there first. Why didn't this guy notice that almost every Wiki site has these sort of links, why me...why is he so interested in ASIA when the links was moved (not added)? I will spend my life watching this guy go through the entire Wiki library. You agree with what he is doing, or was my site no different than these?
John Denver Barry Manilow Jim Croce Jimmy Page Tom Petty Cyndi Lauper Boston
Michael Jackson
Adam Ant
Little River Band Muhammad Ali Ronald Reagan Terry Bradshaw The Carpenters Johnny Nash David Cassidy Bobby Orr Sony Tiffany Jack Nicklaus Lynn Swan Tony Danza Barry Williams Elton John The Guess Who —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.167 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are some more Stevie Wonder
Cream
David Bowie
Whitesnake
Steve Vai
Journey
Peter green
Dan fogelberg
Eddie murphy
Carly Simon
Diana ross
Soft cell
James Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.203 (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What everyones quiet now, no one comments now or no one is fixing this what was done to me?
Is that all moderators want to do is ban, delete, kick off, are problems ever resolved? Or is this all you care about as said above
" I have no interest or opinion on the matter in dispute. My only interest here is to prevent unacceptable behaviour."
Please remove my site asiafanclub.com from the blacklist now, it was deformation calling that a spam site!
Here are some more wiki sites start with
John Payne
Look at this (on External Links) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_club Here are more
The Zombies
Maureen McCormick
Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young)
The Lionel Richie Fan club
The Yardbirds
Ritchie Valens
Eric Clapton
Hanna Montana
Kiss
Rush
Tom Jones
Ringo Star
Buddy Holly
Def Leppard
Reba McEntire
Spocks Beard
Val Kilmer
Lita Ford
Bee Gees biograpy (Fan Club)
Queen
The Partridge Family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.91 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also,
The article did and should contain the information of the worldwide chat that John Wetton and Geoff Downes held, and again we are in negotiation for a new one. That is relevant. The authorized site is RELEVANT. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked
"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
We have a Concert reviews section and the exclusive greatest ASIA photo gallery in the world! RELEVANT The Authorized Fan club is Relevant in itself! IT's in the Biography.
I have contacted the higher ups of Wiki and have a ticket number.
I did not intend to sock puppet or what ever anything... I was at my office PC ... then I came home,... I also edited on my iphone during my break.
Arbitrary break
It would be helpful if participants in this debate could familiarise themselves with how to edit Wikipedia as the above discussion is difficult to follow because of formatting issues. For that matter, it would be helpful if participants in this debate started Wikipedia accounts instead of editing anonymously. This would also make discussion easier to follow and avoid concerns, as expressed above, around sock-puppetry. There is very little discussion above of actual policy. Under WP:EL, I feel both the removed links should be re-instated because they have an official statue and link to sites with content not covered by this article (particularly breaking news). Any concerns around the behaviour of editors during this dispute should be investigated appropriately but are not pertinent to the question of whether these links should be included. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- No kidding. I'm a relative newbie, and even I know how to properly edit and sign a post. I don't know who's saying what in the discussion above, and I'm certainly not going to take any of it seriously. If you want to make serious edits to this article, take the 5 seconds it takes to sign up for a WP account. It's not like it costs anything. And besides not being able to make heads or tails of the details of this argument, I still see no reason why the fan club link shouldn't be included here, especially since it's been part of the article for a long time already. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, in response to the anonymous user note above (4.238.124.30), I contacted Nakon to have the link un-blacklisted. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA Fan Club President States.
Thank you so much... yea ... right...the link was there for a long time... so all I did was move it to number 2 where it was for a long time, and he he took a fit! My site was there before the other. I explained it in the edit, first come first in line! Someone pushed it down to the bottom, have little respect, mine was there for a long time.
If you get it back up please label it The Authorized ASIA Fan Club. I don't think I'm granted to edit yet. I think my ban is up, but I need to know if it's off the blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
When you click edit in the links section it says " PLEASE DON'T ADD ANY MORE LINKS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE -->"
Can you please find out who added this, is who we think or is this legit until my site is un-blacklisted?
If it's who I think it is... yea.... that might work! Can someone see who added this? I'll wait until Tuesday.
It shouldn't take that long to get it un-blacklisted. Please find out who added that. He hid it, so you can only see that notice when you click the edit button on the external links box.
Bozo just edited that page last again... he's is all over that site like a fly on dung.
- You are more likely to get this issue resolved if you take some time to make your contributions easier to follow. For example, do not start a line with blank spaces as Wikipedia interprets that as a formatting command. It would be simpler if you stopped editing anonymously and created your own accounts. If, Asia Fan Club President, you have been blocked, wait until the block expires. Then, once we can demonstrate some sort of consensus here on this Talk page, we can request any blocks on the article page are removed. Bondegezou (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA Fan Club President states Someone has to do something about this SOB, he is trying control the ASIA page, and someone is putting hidden messages in the external links that you can only see when you go to edit. I understand and did not make any edits for the public to see. We're having this investigated as well, and we know what's going on, both sides have made their case and it appears to be evident that this guy has a vested interest on this page and that my site should not have been removed. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked these are the sites that should be linked "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." We have interviews articles, concert reviews, and chats with the band and I send out the official press releases to the fans ASAP by Email as soon as I get them from managment and also and exclusive tour photo gallery from 1982 that is exclusive to the ASIA Fan Club, it is the greatest ASIA photo gallery in the world, and we are authorized. Most of the fan sites linked to Wiki are labeled as unofficial and they're still there. You people are caught in the middle of long war that has gone on since 1994. The JP ASIA link wasn't in the official biography, mine is, and mine got removed? "BS"! Above I provided a link from Wiki that shows how relevant fan sites are added to the external links page, and I provided many examples of Wiki sites that have them... I'll wait.... but how long is going to take to get my site un blacklisted? That was slander and discrimination.... the site is legit, authorized and was there for a while until someone took a S%$T fit when it was moved in front of the ASIA with JP site. I just wanted to know who placed the private message in the external links edit button. This will not be tolerated by any means.
- To respond to your queries:
- You can find out who made which revision to any article on Wikipedia by examining the edit history where every single change is recorded. Click the 'History' tab at the top of the page.
- As for the comment in the External Links section that reads, PLEASE DON'T ADD ANY MORE LINKS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, this kind of notice is fairly standard when something is under discussion and should be taken as an invitation to discuss the section. It is not binding and can be added or removed by any editor, although, like any edit, one should have a consensus to do so first.
- It appears to me that the link that there is a consensus to re-add the link to the fan club. In order to get it unblacklisted, an administrator will have to remove it. I could do this, but administrators do not overturn each other's actions without discussion. However, if a few days pass and Nakon (talk · contribs), who originally added the link to the blacklist, does not remove it, I will take ask him about it myself.
- Remember, Wikipedia is run by volunteers who have many commitments in real life. Sometimes things can take a few days to get sorted. There is no deadline. CIreland (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
From ASIA fan club Pres. Thank You. Wait a few days I will. Please check back & keep your eye on this, if you have to override by then please do what is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.137.247.56 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great. Now, "Asia Fan Club President" - please take that time and sign up for an account so you're not posting anonymously (upper right hand corner of your screen). Also, take a minute to read over this: Talk page guidelines - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA Fan Club Pres states...
Been a few days... had the site been lifted from the blacklist or are people in this together? I recieved a response back from Wikipedia and they said I could re add the link. Didn't take a few days for it to get blacklisted though did it? Please override the blacklist by Nakon.
- As I said I would, yesterday I asked Nakon what the situation was. He has not responded yet, but has barely been on Wikipedia. If I get no response in the next 48 hours (approx) I'll just have to sort things according to consensus here. CIreland (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA Pres says,
I will appreciate that. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK... 48+ up ASIA Pres says
It obvious what is going on... Please take care of this .......
Fan club link blacklisting
I've removed Asia fan club url from the spam blacklist. If there is consensus to add it, as there appears to be, then it should be possible to do so. However, I'm not sure whether changing the blacklist takes immediate effect or whether it takes a few hours to take effect, so if it doesn't work straight away, try again later. CIreland (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Fan club Pres states, On behalf of the fan we thank you, however, I tried to re-add the link it and deleted within seconds by itself, has to be a robot. We need someone to fix that. What I did, was mirror the home to page to the contact page, it appears to be holding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK....it appears to be ok now. What I did was add the mirror link which was a /contact extention... once that held I removed the /contact.... it appears to be holding. Asiafanclub.com is re-added. Nothing has to be fixed. On another note, I ask that if any links are added, please take your place in line. I took the 3rd place because one I'm not going to be a big baby, 2 the JP site is the actual official site for the other ASIA and for now these two ASIA's are using this page. It is my opinion that a separate page be created for each of these bands. You go to the JP official ASIA site, you don't see the other era, go to mine or the official reunion site, you don't see the JP era. I understand it was part of the history but that is all changed now. There should be two separate wiki pages for these ASIA's with an explanation of it's history and how it is now branched off into separate institutions. You will not see ASIA (the one I represent), play any JP era song in concert. Or on a compilation CD... Best of, anthologia, The definitive collection. The public should not expect JP era songs in concert as well, but they may if they see the wiki page with both eras on it.
The definitive collection... not one JP era song. What is that telling you? Please, create the other page.
- FYI, changes to the blacklist take affect immediately.
- I don't see any consensus yet to use this link. Here are editors (besides Mondrago and his various IPs) that appear to support the link (from what I can tell):
- Bondegezou
- Shubopshadangalang
- I don't see any consensus yet to use this link. Here are editors (besides Mondrago and his various IPs) that appear to support the link (from what I can tell):
- These are editors that have either removed the link, blacklisted it or appear to oppose it:
- 156.34.220.66 (and related IPs in the 156.34.220.xxx block)
- Compwhizii
- 198.164.251.53 (and related IPs in the 198.164.251.xxx block)
- Nakon
- 142.166.250.216 (and related IPs in the 142.166.250.xxx block)
- Ixfd64
- Blow of Light
- Cometstyles
- These are editors that have either removed the link, blacklisted it or appear to oppose it:
- If I've mischaracterized anyone's views on this, please feel free to correct the list above.
- My own view is that the link doesn't meet the requirements of our External Links Guideline
- Related discussions:
- --A. B. (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree, Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guidelines. Additionaly there appears to be no consensus for inclusion--Hu12 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Asia Fan club pres states. If that is the case then remove all fan club sites from every wiki site this is not fair, and we know what is going on. Acoding to wiki it is valid. meaningful, relevant content
"What should be linked Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. "
We have reviews and a tour photo LP— 70.188.184.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC).
- The status of other articles has no bearing on this article. The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist. --Hu12 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
ASIA Fan Club Pres states.... He already banned me from talking here as well as editing....I'm glad everyone is seeing this... The fact remains my site is being singled out and according to wiki rules... concert reviews and interviews which the site has, is relavant content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.221 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- IP 70.188.184.84 was linkspam warring on the article, here is the info;
- 1st revert: 11:55, 10 February 2008
- 2nd revert: 12:00, 10 February 2008
- 3rd revert: 12:08, 10 February 2008
- 4th revert: 17:18, 10 February 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 16:44, 10 February 2008
--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- IP 70.188.184.84 was linkspam warring on the article, here is the info;
- I still think it should be included, but I wonder why this is SO important to the Asia Fan Club to be included... it's like a full time job for you, pleading for it to be included here! Wouldn't it be more effective to have a link (or an ad) on one or both of the official "Asia" sites? And, sorry to harp on this, but wouldn't it be worth your time to get a Wikipedia account and stop editing anoymously? And to stop starting every post with "Asia Fan Club President states"? Who does that?? Seriously, I'm trying to support your cause here, but you're not making it easy. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- A. B. accurately lists those who have removed, opposed or blacklisted the link in question. However, this should be about reaching a consensus through discussion, not a show of hands, and most of those names have not taken part in the discussion here. Several of them were acting in response to an out-of-control edit war and inappropriate behaviour by one participant: as such, they may have been 'firefighting', so to speak, rather than considering the issue at hand in depth. Until today, the majority view on this Talk page has been to restore the link in question and I would give that more weight than A. B.'s list.
- I've argued above why I think the link in question and another are consistent with WP:EL. To summarise, both links are official and contain information beyond that in the article: they are thus entirely consistent with the opening sections of WP:EL. While A. B. and Hu12 both say they do not feel the fan page link meets WP:EL, they have not explained why they feel it doesn't. Might I ask if they might expand on their comments? I also second Shubopshadangalang's comments. Asia Fan Club President: you are not making this easy! Bondegezou (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great point. If there are legitimate reasons for removing the link, let's add them to the record of discussion and reach a consensus here. I've seen no real discussion in opposition of the link, only actions from people like Compwhiz, while Clerland's view appears neutral. As far as I'm concerned, anonymous users don't have much weight as "editors". By that argument, the consensus is in favor at this point... but let's leave this open for a while and hear what those opposed have to say, if they do. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just happening across this conversation in a random browse. I don't feel the fanclub link should be allowed in this article. I don't feel fanclub links should be allowed in any article. I am sure it's a fine website. But if anyone needs to find the link they can just Google for it. It doesn't serve any purpose here on Wikipedia. Fair Deal (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Links normally to be avoided:"
- "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
- "11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET."
- "12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."
- The material on the asiafanclub site is essentially self-published material.
- --A. B. (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Links normally to be avoided:"
- See also;
- Aside from the obvious spaming and campaigning(see below), the link invariably fails the requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- AB, can you verify the claim that the Asia Fan Club is "self-published" material? - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at the Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material", then look at the asiafanclub site and you'll see what I mean. --A. B. (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Accounts/IPsocks used by Mondrago
Template:MultiColMondrago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
| class="col-break " | 4.238.124.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
156.34.220.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.127.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
32.141.139.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
| class="col-break " | 70.167.100.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
32.141.139.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.167.100.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
32.137.247.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Template:EndMultiCol--Hu12 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)