User talk:Hu12

6,865,981 /Sandboxx

Sunday

11

August

10:45 UTC

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

“ Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.. ” — WP:TIGERS

---

Welcome

Welcome to the talk page . --Hu12 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support this page by clicking on this advertisement. Receive a "free" userbox!!

Would like yout thoughts

A series of IP's have been editing Catfight by adding a new novel and a spamlink to a novel with a casual mention of the subject. I thought I had one of the IP's on a 3RR violation but he left after that. With the multitude of IP's I am not sure a block would get me where I need to go. Would something like this warrant a protect request of the page? TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 17:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. I'll leave a note on the talk page. thanks for reporting the abuse.--Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I should have brought it up sooner rather than fight it out with this fellow. I had no idea these people were so pervasive on WP. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Garrison Courtney

Garrison Courtney, an article that you contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. The nominator does not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrison Courtney. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns.

deletion of the article on "Wesabe"

I came to Wikipedia to learn more about services like Mint.com, Wesabe.com, and Yodlee Moneycenter which I initially learned about from Money magazine. I was surprised to find the article for Wasabe (wasabe.com) deleted and am curious as to why. The page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wesabe&action=edit&redlink=1_) referenced deletion by east718. When I broached the subject on his talk page, he referred me to you.

The article was actually located at Wesabe.com (not Wesabe) - you'll have to talk to Hu12 (talk · contribs) about it, since he was actually the administrator who performed the deletion. — east718 | talk | 04:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why the article was deleted and if it could be reinstated or rewritten in a form that would meet Wikipedia's editorial standards? GTown1978 (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:CSD#G11. In order for it to meet Wikipedia standards, it would need to meet the inclusion criteria located at WP:WEB--Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

your watching of links to Lyrikline.org

Thanks for watching for spamlinks. If you believe that substantial linkspam to this domain is likely here on en.wikipedia, I appreciate your continued watchfulness, and would appreciate notice of any problem links you find, whether you remove them or otherwise act on your own; it will make my own watchfulness more reliable. I am now adding in links, carefully, and, at this point, with prior discussion or notice on article Talk. And thanks again for withdrawing objection to restoral of Lyrikline.org and for, without any request, whitelisting the single home page, it broke the ice. --Abd (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. Just an FYI; Its generaly felt that articles should link to the article's subject's "official" site in most cases. Hence why I whitelisted. BTW, good work on the Lyrikline article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. The Lyrikline site is an official site, i.e., postings there are by permission of the author and it seems that generally the audio is made specifically by and for Lyrikline. Thus Lyrikline hosts content that may not be available anywhere else, one of the guidelines for WP:EL. I added links that I'd previously proposed (and in no place did an objection appear, but we'll see what happens over time), and today I proposed a new batch. Adding a link does create a linkfarm risk, in some cases, but WP:LINKFARM is a weak guideline in that there is no crisp line. In every case I've seen so far, the Lyrikline link is at least a candidate to remain among the links there. In some articles, actually, there isn't any sourcing (one article had, as its source, a restatement of the Lyrikline content on some web site (with no apparent connection between the poet and the copy, so it was possible copyvio). So in some articles, I'll be adding lyrikline as a reliable source for information that was already in the article. On these pages, it won't be an external link; I think I already did one like that today. You are, of course, welcome to watch my contributions and to ping me if you think I'm going too far, I'll respond and discuss before barging ahead full steam.

The most obvious point of possible controversy would be the articles for poets where Lyrikline doesn't have English translations. However, WP:EL doesn't prohibit linking to non-en sites, though those links should be flagged. If we have the article, I'd suggest, the Lyrikline site would be better than nothing, in every case I've seen so far. --Abd (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify, Lyrikline is an official site only to the article Lyrikline.org, which is why, as a courtesy, I added it to Lyrikline.org.

1. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates the creator's copyright may be considered contributory infringement.
2. Webpages in English are highly preferred, per MOS and WP:EL.
3. While some external links may be permitted by the External links Guideline, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy to be included. Thus, rationale for placing the link becomes quite secondary when a link is prohibited under EL's restrictions on linking.

--Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately for this argument, and fortunately for t he links, the links are not prohibited by the EL guidelines. the site is not a site devoted to copyright violation, but instead a site operated with support from the German Commission for Unesco, in a country notable for its strict copyright enforcement. There is therefore no objection. You may have added it as a courtesy, but actually it was added in strict conformance with policy. I am rather bothered by the "I" in the above comment--links are not added according to what you think appropriate, but according to the community policy and guidelines. DGG (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent to Hu12's comments above, I think, the entire English interface (it seems) was whitelisted by Beetstra who has spent quite a bit more time on this issue, pursuant to a discussion on the whitelist page for en.wikipedia. As to the points made, it's pretty clear to me that some involved with the blacklist have a rather nonstandard view of Wikipedia policy on external links and their usage. I think it happens from focusing on preventing spam instead of on building a project. Obviously both are necessary, but the prevention should not prevent the building. On each point:

1. There is no evidence that lyrikline is hosting any copyright violation, so we are far, far from contributory infringement, which requires actual knowledge of infringement (or possibly, we might speculate, reckless disregard, i.e., blatant infringment that any reasonable person would know that it was such.
2. Web pages in English are preferred. Yes. So? External links to pages in other languages are permitted, and, frankly, as a reader, I find them useful, and there is a procedure for flagging them. We have decent translation tools, you know. If we have an article on, say, a poet who writes in Arabic, a link to a page in Arabic, with Arabic audio and text, might actually be better to a page with only English text. Lyrikline, though, is likely to have a translation, often into English.
3. No content is "required, guaranteed, or mandated" on Wikipedia, not just links. None. However, the whole purpose of the encyclopedia is serving the reader. If a link serves readers, and is not contrary to policy or guidelines, it should be permitted. WP:LINKFARM is often cited here, but "linkfarm" is not an argument against any specific link, it is an argument against too many links, so the question for any article becomes which links are the most useful. When a lyrikline link is the only link added to an article, or there are very few, the linkfarm argument falls on its face.

What about WP:EL prohibited links to lyrikline.org? My understanding of the history of this is that a single user, Lyrik on de and Lyriker here, with prior obvious connected history as IP, and editing as IP on other 'pedias (just as antispam volunteers often do), started adding links to lyrikline.org to articles on poets, here and on other 'pedias, many of them. This triggered the linkspam "radar," which doesn't seem to engage in discussion of content, for reasons that I certainly understand, it would be impossible. I have seen allegations that Lyrik was connected with lyrikline.org, Beetstra hints that "they knew what they were doing," but none of this evidence has been presented, and, in fact, COI is irrelevant to content, it would only establish that Lyrik should have been making the edits as suggestions on Talk pages, instead of directly doing them himself. I wonder why this wasn't suggested! I can tell you why. It doesn't fit with the battleship model of antispam work, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Assuming_good_faith presents a very problematic view of WP:AGF and response to vandalism and other problem behavior, apparently encouraging the vigilante culture of the antispammers. This is the cart driving the horse, I'm afraid. I believe we can do both, be efficient in preventing linkspam *and* foster better content, but the spam project must stop asserting exclusive control. Yes, revert, block, protect, even blacklist when necessary, but WP:DR, WP:BLOCK, WP:BITE and other guidelines are not suspended for the benefit of protecting us from spam.

The problem is not the blacklisting, the problem is the tenacious resistance to legitimate usage of various sites, with lyrikline being a quite clean example, and, in fact, from the original evidence and conditions, addition of links stopped before it was actually prevented by blacklisting, and Lyrik began removing links, apparently coming to think that he had violated policy. He actually hadn't. There is no policy against adding hundreds of appropriate links, there is merely advice that if you do so, you might trigger an antispam police action. When User:Lyriker, he stopped. So ... why was he indef blocked, and why were all the edits reverted without regard to appropriateness, and why was Lyrikline.org deleted, and why was the site globally blacklisted with hardly any discussion? Later, in trying to get one page whitelisted, it was practically demanded that I consult WP:WikiProject Poetry. Fine. I did, actually I already had. But why did the antispam volunteers consider it perfectly appropriate to without regard to specific appropriateness and without any consultation or notice, remove so many links, without comment, without discussion, and just with something like "rv spam"

There was no emergency. Link addition had stopped. Hu12, if you don't want to take the time to review content, fine. But please don't edit content without review. An alleged linkspammer isn't community banned, such that their edits can be reverted without regard to content. If links are blatant spam, clearly not appropriate, violating WP:EL, fine. Go right ahead. But, Hu12, lyrikline links didn't violate the guideline, and if you thought they did, you were not paying sufficient attention. You (and others) made a mistake. And you have yet to acknowledge this, and that is what causes me concern, not the mistake itself. All of us make mistakes, but when we refuse to acknowledge them, we raise very legitimate concern that we will repeat them, and that cuts to the heart of administrative privilege. Please consider this carefully.

Were the lyrikline links "appropriate"? Let me put it this way. De.wikipedia, which has stricter rules on copyright than we do, whitelisted lyrikline after their efforts to get it globally delisted failed. I have not yet seen a link which was clearly inappropriate, the worst examples I've seen would be what I mentioned above: a link to an article on a poet where the poet's work wasn't in the language of the 'pedia. But, of course, the article is about that poet and the poet's work, so pointing to the work is hardly disruptive or a violation of policy, merely non-preferred if there is a better alternative. I saw no example of "too many links," so far. Good content was removed by the antispam volunteers, en masse. It continued, after de whitelisted lyrikline, IP out of Australia, apparently from one of the antispam volunteers removed a series of links on de and got troutslapped by an admin. Recently, I added two links or so to de.wikipedia, as IP. Beetstra removed one, then reverted himself. Apparently he actually looked at it! --Abd (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Old spammer talk pages

FYI: deleting old talk pages is being discussed again. Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal at Wikipedia talk:User page#Non-contributors; this follows earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:User page#Non-contributors and Wikipedia talk:User page#OLDIP removal. I have added a subsection, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Old spammer talk pages asking that old spammer talk pages be kept. Your opinions, whether pro or con, would be helpful. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the cleanup on my user page. I consider slugs like that as a badge of honor. Cheers! TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome;) Nothing like having a fan club...LOL.--Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Long time no speak

Hello. Remember ol Libsy... the staunch 156.X IP who would never have an account :-D . Well... almost a full year since I have clan'd back up with this goofy little username... I need your help with a link (just like ol times) A while ago a few Wikipedians, in their grandest brilliance, AfD'd an article for an amateur webzine called "The Metal Observer" deeming it unworthy of a Wiki page and a link that not offer anything to Wikipedia readers. It was also rejected as a reliable source and has not been added to the WP:ALBUM's list of approved music review sites (for several reasons similar to the reasons it was turfed in the first place) Problem in, here lies the favour, The link to this atrosous little site is still filtering onto Wikipedia fairly frequently. The link is http://www.metal-observer.com. Any chance we can get it mothballed onto the "list of should not be's?" Thanks! Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Any chance to review yet? Just wonderin'. Cheers! The Real Libs-speak politely 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey libs. I see there are 1059 metal-observer.com links currently on wikipedia. I've added a linkreport, this should identify who's adding them...Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/metal-observer.com.--Hu12 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

please look into this

Could you please look at my talk page regarding en external link on Adult video game Orpheus75 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)