Jump to content

User talk:Hu12: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,549,258 edits
m Dating comment by Kazkura - "/request/ blacklist removal"
readwriteweb discussion
Line 223: Line 223:


[[User:Kazkura|Kazkura]] ([[User talk:Kazkura|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 09:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[User:Kazkura|Kazkura]] ([[User talk:Kazkura|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 09:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Greetings ==

Your attempt to silence the editor of ReadWriteWeb is being [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22980 discussed on Wikipedia Review.]

Revision as of 21:24, 14 February 2009

There is no Cabal

6,867,254 /Sandboxx


Wednesday
14
August
05:05 UTC



If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it.
Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks.


Welcome

Welcome to the talk page . Still on the road dealing with a host of stuff, Lack of responses during this time is to be expected. Will check in when possible, wishing all a Happy New Year. Be back shortly.--Hu12 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam
Support this page by clicking on this advertisement. Receive a "free" userbox!!

Welcome back

Thanks for the block on User:SecondMarket, Inc. - I had already reverted a few of those links popping up and was going to have to look for some assistance if there was recurrence. The company itself has been increasing its profile recently and was profiled in some trade publications around trading CDOs but the recent postings are just blatant spam.

Separately, although we had our run ins in the past, I was glad to see you back on after a long hiatus. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge. Keep up the fine work ;). --Hu12 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. Hope we can find something to work on as you ease back in. Regards |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back

Have a good new year. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You as well! cheers--Hu12 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

Good to see you, Welcome Back! :) --Versageek 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - welcome back Hu12! I was shocked to see you beat me to a spam revert. :) Kuru talk 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Missed you all for sure! Although I still have my hands full, I will check in when its possible. If at times I can't respond, its good to know others are keeping an eye on my talk page ;). Happy New Year. Cheers --Hu12 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also very glad to see you again. I was beginning to think all my old friends had faded away... — Satori Son 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, welcome back to the fray! I hope you are still open to spam questions and giving general advice.. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thank you for backing me up here. Themfromspace (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation on http use

A conversation has been started about the use of http links on the WT:WPSPAM page. As a frequent editor of that page, your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http use on this page would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - LuckyLove8

Hi Hu. I put up a brief response to your recent edits. I won't revert them. I want you to reconsider in light of my arguments and consider reverting them yourself.

[LuckyLove8 user talk page]

thanks LuckyLove8 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Exclaim! is a wholly valid and reliable source for music articles, not a violation of WP:SPAM or WP:EL. It's one of the two Canadian music magazines, the other being Chart, that are absolutely core sources of equivalent validity to Rolling Stone or Spin. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#exclaim.ca. Agents of this publication have proliferated an extensive spam campaign. This violates multiple policies. Only the editors in violation have been removied, good faith additions still remain, and won't be removed. Here are the rules;
--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sbl log format

Hi!
Pleas use this format for the sbl log, tia. -- seth (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of HDRO-UNDP

Hello Hu12. HDRO-UNDP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this user could be unblocked contingent on a username change and a commitment to WP:COI-compliant editing.  Sandstein  19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assesment/comment. I still have concerns...
However, providing past COI contributions are not repeated, a second chance should be given. Thanks for the note, Sandstein. --Hu12 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

journal group

Hu, please see my note at User talk:Akradecki. I'm removing the spam parts & upgrading as i go, title by title, it'll take me a few days to finish, but they are quite respectable titles & I'll take responsible for keeping their PR guy honest. DGG (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that instead of giving me that courtesy, you nominated it for deletion just a few hours later, and didn't even notify you. I would not treat you--or anyone else at Wikipedia--that way. I respect your work, and I expect or at least hope that you will respect mine. DGG (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps we should have a conversation? email?DGG (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Afd was already mentioned on the other talk page, prior to your posting here and prior to me nominating them. If a few of those mktng articles get deleted its less work all around. If we choose to focus on our percieved differences, despite the many good things (I believe) we have in common, discussion won't help. If you feel besmirched because of the nominations, I apoligise. As I've said in the past, I do respect you, Perhaps I should have been more thoughtfull in this instance. --Hu12 (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associated content.com - thanks

Thanks for your explanation here, and sorry for wasting your time. -kotra (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a waste at all. Keep up the good work! Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your (old) block of User:Lyriker

16:24, 23 January 2008 Hu12 blocked Lyriker (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite: Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address)

Lyriker was accused of linkspam. Whether or not what Lyriker did was linkspam, pointing to pages on lyrikline.org (I have serious doubts about that, and evidence of linkspamming included the links added to de.wiki which have been judged to be acceptable), the block based on the user name was a total error. "Lyriker" simply means, in German, "poet." "Lyrik" means "poetry." Basically, an easy AGF construction of what happened was that a user who is interested in poetry (as can be seen by contributions on de of this same user, who has the user name Lyrik there) finds that there is a poetry site which contains permitted copies and audio contributed by poets, so this user starts adding the links, believing them to be useful. There is no "domain" or "web address" implied in the user name, you could not find lyrikline.org simply by knowing the user name Lyriker. Please unblock; failing that, please permit another admin to unblock, should I find one willing to do it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your (old) deletion of lyrikline.org

I see that you deleted lyrikline.org as "blatant advertising." There is no clear evidence that User:Lyriker who may have created the article (I can't tell because it was deleted) was affiliated with the website lyrikline.org. Lyriker.org has an article on de that was indeed created by this user (as Lyrik on de): that article stands (and lyriker.org has been whitelisted on de, which is the only wiki, to my knowledge, that has deliberated the matter outside of blacklist admins and anti-linkspam warriors). If the article itself was inappropriately written, I request that you userfy it to my user space so that I may review it before moving it to article space. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


First, the dropdown reasons in the "Block log" summary have since been improved to include better rationale for Spam-only and promotional accounts such as User:Lyriker. If your unfamiliar, AGF does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence[1]. See :
Secondly, The argument you've stated for unblocking is not valid, where apropriate action was taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. Ie.
Finaly, If you wish to create a useful article about lyrikline.org That meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, feel free to do so. thanks for your time--Hu12 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor was a de user, Lyrik. Editor showed similar interests on de, i.e., in Poetry. There is no evidence that Lyriker was "promoting" anything, but, on the face, was simply adding links that the user thought appropriate and relevant, and, in fact, the links on de have all been found to be appropriate. They are not here because the site is meta blacklisted, still, and a whitelisting request from a legitimate editor was just denied (for no clear reason other than "not needed"). Essentially, the user triggered what WP:SPAM calls the "antispam radar," but didn't actually spam, as the word would be ordinarily understood. The addition of multiple links looks like spam, but may not be, if all the links added are appropriate or at least reasonable.
De editors came to meta and requested delisting of lyrikline.org, the allegedly spammed site, but this was denied, evidence the same as you cited: a single user who did add a lot of links, cross-wiki, but who actually stopped when warned. De, faced with refusal to delist at meta, has whitelisted the site and hasn't been inundated with linkspam. The editor, not blocked on de, even while unable to add links due to the meta blacklisting, removed links, apparently believing that he or she had done something wrong by adding them. Yes, I'll create the article. Are you willing to userfy it to my user space, so I can see what was done? I could also try to translate the article from de. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/lyrikline.org. --Abd (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There being no response to my request, I asked Sarcasticidealist to userfy it for me, which he kindly did. Thanks for your attention. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrikline.org has now been cleaned up a bit, referenced, and moved to article space. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've whitelisted and have added[2] this specific link, http://www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=51&L=1 , for use on en:Lyrikline.org only. The the general blacklisting of the sites link has not be lifted, however variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable.--Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very helpful. I was thinking of asking for that exact whitelisting, so your response to my request took a negative amount of time. That's what I call fast! --Abd (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a warning?

Hu12, this seemed a tad threatening. Was it intended that way? In that discussion, I responded to points made by other editors that sometimes reflected an incorrect understanding of the relevant history. There are, in addition, possible disagreements on undocumented blacklist procedures, which go beyond guidelines, which are becoming clear from the discussions, and which have been previously rather arcane to many editors and administrators, and which were being discussed on various Talk pages, and which now are under discussion by some at User talk:Abd/Blacklist, a page I set up to work on documenting how the blacklist procedures may not be working, with recognition that it is usually working. I'm finding it all enlightening. You are welcome to join that discussion, if you have time and inclination, but, please, no threats. --Abd (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12's selected quote: "..continuing that stance..may interperated as a disruptive pattern..if let to continue." seems to deny Wikipedia's receptivity to new contribution, as expressed formally by "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't particularly friendly, but if I were to continue debating a point beyond a decision (and without extenuating circumstances, such as new arguments or additional, possibly misleading evidence being presented by other editors), it would indeed be disruptive. However, that doesn't mean that I can't continue to challenge a decision, just not in that place or in a forum at, effectively, the same level. If I disagree (as I certainly do), I can take it up individually with a deciding administrator, and if there is no satisfaction there, can go up the ladder of WP:DR, which I almost certainly will, given the arguments being presented. See User:Abd/Blacklist and Talk there, plus with regard to lyrikline.org, see User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org for a history of the lyrikline blacklisting and of the user whose substantial cross-wiki linking of the site led to the blacklisting. Nevertheless, if I thought there was an important point to make, to be kept with that discussion or close to it, I'd follow the instructions in the closing notice. I have, on occasion. I might use a new subsection, outside of the closing notice; but the blacklist pages are operating pages, not really designed for debate. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a tad quick for an article that had been around for years. Please undelete and PROD or AfD if you so wish. I found one source, fairly quickly, there may be more. Or not. I just think that the article should have a chance. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was requested by another editor, contents was indeed quite promotional (and has been like that for a long time). Guess it was a case of missed promotional language. There may be some very old revisions that might be salvageable, though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. My point. It's also possible, and easy, to stub the article. However, if Hu12 isn't amenable to undeletion, don't know if he has seen this yet, then I request that the article be restored (with revisions and Talk, if there is any) and userfied to my user space. If the restoring admin is concerned about promotion, though there should be no rush, given how long it sat there, then blanking the page should address that, and I, and others, can see the history and fix the article before moving it back -- or leaving it deleted, depending on what is found, both from history and from new searches for sources. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, maybe some of us are not amendable to undeletion (which I know is not true). I really would like you to have a good read through WP:AGF. The speedy deletion request was by another editor, also they could have had a look first. Mistakes are made, but you first cry wolf, without knowing a history (here you can't know the history as it is deleted, but that is not a reason to first accuse!). Wikipedia is not a promotion vehicle, and if an article is too promotional, deletion is a good option. Please stop your witchhunt, you could also have gone to WP:DR with this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, I'm astonished! You'd prefer that I go to WP:DRV over a speedy deletion without first discussing it with the deleting admin? Sure, I can go there, but I'd thought we are supposed to start small with direct requests to acting admins. Have I missed something? I've already responded to you on your Talk page, but I'd really not noticed how bizarre this comment was. Anyway, I think I'm done here, I've requested userification from another admin and will proceed accordingly. I simply comment below that Ready-links.com wasn't deliberately blacklisted, and as you stated elsewhere, the regex expression was simply an error. Since Hu12 is the one who added that expression to the blacklist, I thought it appropriate to mention it to him. He's not obligated to do anything. --Abd (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, I'm amendable to undeletion and userfying pages in situations where it does not involve wholsale mischaracterizing of facts and meritless fishing expeditions. My talk page is not a platform for you to exploit in order to "push an agenda".--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, the only "agenda" I'm "pushing" is the improvement of the project. Beetstra, I don't see any violation of AGF above. Could you point it out, specifically? To question an administrative decision doesn't violate AGF, AGF doesn't mean "Assume Good Decisions." I have the right to question a decision; I don't do that unless I have some suspicion that an error might have been made. Not a conclusion, necessarily. However, I've seen the google cache for the article. As you stated above, Beetstra, there might have been salvageable content there. If that was the case, speedy deletion was inappropriate. The editor complaining could also have taken out everything objectionable, quickly, stubbing it, perhaps. If the stub becomes too short, then the article could be AfD'd, and if no sources could be found, that would be quick.
No claim has been made here that Hu12 made the wrong decision; I've merely presented some counterarguments. We can resolve this quickly, or we can go through further process. I can get the article userfied, I presume, if I haven't already done that. And then some work can be done on it and it could be moved back to article space. I would ask Hu12, as the deleting administrator, for permission before doing that, and he can decide at that time. If he accepts, we are done. If he refuses, then there is WP:DR (assuming I still disagree.) DR works. Now, Hu12, any time you want to ban me from your user page, you may certainly do so, by notice on my Talk page. I'll honor it, but, it does mean that the first stages of WP:DR would then be skipped. Your choice, I have no problem with either way, though I prefer the simplicity of direct negotiation. Thanks. And your prior help on other issues is not forgotten. --Abd (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no conclusion, however, as yet, as to whether or not the article would or should survive formal deletion process. I'm not about to waste everyone's time if I expect it would be deleted. Are we done for the moment? I read the above as a denial of userification, so I'll inform any admin I ask for a copy of this denial, so that they are aware of your objection. Correct? --Abd (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed something else about this Readylinks affair. Ready-links.com was blacklisted because links.com was blacklisted, see [MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#links.com_regex_biting_nonspammed_ready-links.com_and_broken-links.com]. You added that link to the blacklist with [3]. The reported domain wasn't links.com, it was a subdomain, links.links.com. Looks like links.com deleted that subdomain, links.com is like a wiki and it looks like a spammer grabbed a subdomain. Did you intend to blacklist links.com instead of the actual spammed domain, links.links.com? As you should know from the above, \blinks\.com\b catches Ready-links.com as well as the links.com, likewise broken-links.com which was recently whitelisted to get around this. Would you consider removing the blacklisting of links.com (it really isn't needed any more), or edit the regex to touch links.links.com instead of links.com? --Abd (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RRE Ventures

Hu12 -

I noticed you flagged the RRE Ventures article as having significant contributions from User:jdriv and have implied based on the initials that this is the senior partner of the firm with corresponding initials. My read is that given anyone can choose any user name he or she wants, unless a user "outs" himself you should not be identifying him in that way. It could just as easily be the most junior member of the firm or a secretary as it is the senior partner. Additionally, I have gone into the article itself and cleaned up some of the objectionable content anyway so other than embarassing the user / person in question, I am not sure what purpose is served with your tag. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jdriv&diff=prev&oldid=270345616 . He identifies himself as the co-Founder & Managing Partner of RRE Ventures, an article in which he created about his company. It also Appears he has Added himself and edited his fathers article James D. Robinson III--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block Reconsideration

Hu12, Several months ago you blacklisted a website (discoverdalian.com) and a request was made to reconsider.

The user who made the original claim to have the site blacklisted - Hermant patel - is a verified sock puppet that is now blocked from wikipedia.

I believe this adds proof to my statement that the blocked web site was unfairly targeted as spam. Perhaps the link was not proper to be listed, and after you explained some of the criteria about adding external links, no further attempts were made to add it.

At the time, local individuals and interests were fighting over web content that represented the city of Dalian in English, and wikipedia became one of the many battle grounds. When the link I added was removed, I took the action as part of the effort by this cliche to attack what they did not control.

So it became personal, and perhaps I lost sight of the proper wikipedia regulations. In any case, I would once again request that the site be removed from the wikipedia blacklist.

I realize this post location is not the best venue to make the request, but since you authorized the blacklist I thought it best to again make my request to you.

I have no plans to add or include the URL on wikipedia, but the fact that it is blacklisted remains a personal slap that I would like corrected. No warning was given before the blacklist action was approved, and as I mentioned - the fact that this all came about from a sock puppet who also became blacklisted shows that this originated from someone who had motives beyond a civic duty to help wikipedia content.

I have other URLs that could be used to redirect to the same website that is blacklisted, and I could easily post them if I was determined to make a bad faith contribution.

Since I have made no attempts to do so in the months since, I hope that helps support my case. When I presented this information originally, another editor supported my request during your absence, but a different editor closed the issue and that was that. After six months, I hope this appeal will meet with a more favorable outcome. Thanks.

Kazkura (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Greetings

Your attempt to silence the editor of ReadWriteWeb is being discussed on Wikipedia Review.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&oldid=270737942"