User talk:Hu12: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:49, 12 December 2009

User talk:Hu12/talkheader

Welcome

Welcome to the talk page . --Hu12 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question

My materials that i post on wikipedia keeps getting deleted by you. What do i need to do to keep it live and preventing it from getting deleted?

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handsomedavid (talk • contribs) 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you;re a boot...

I see a very prolofic spammer adding their non-notable amateur album reviews to many an album article. Based on the username it looks like a clear WP:COI issue as well. Any chance you can keep a watch on this website. If tit gets too bad the site should put awarded a "blackie" The Real Libs-speak politely 15:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious username violation, reviewrinserepeat.com. Delt with accordingly. I've added a Spam report, so others can also keep a look out for this. Cleanup is needed. thanks libs..--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The HAMMER!! Strike like lightning. Your username should be Thor. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not that I am whining or anything...

But why do I not have this credential attached to my accountishness? On the rarity that I create pages or re-directs related to WP:MUSIC and WP GUITAR... I would love to know that I can be trusted to do this without an npp wasting his/her valuable time spinning their wheels and checking me out. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really comes down to being someone who regularly creates articles. You are of course trusted, and have rollbacker rights. Besides being a long standing delet-ionist. You woulden't want to send the wrong message, would you?...LOL. Chances are any NPP reviewing will have been a wikipedian for less time with fewer edits than you,

Done Go create some articles.--Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like a halo. :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from National Research Center for Women & Families

Hello Hu12, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to National Research Center for Women & Families has been removed. It was removed by Juliancolton with the following edit summary '(PROD contested)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Juliancolton before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

:)

thank you Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YW. Good work;) --Hu12 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all of the work you do dealing with the spam-blacklist and spam-whitelist. It's a thankless job that seems to be never ending without much recognition. So I hereby recognize you with the Admin's Barnstar! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gogo Dodo! Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

Why was my edit reverted on UAA? I thought the username was clearly a violation of policy. I am not a regular there, so I am not sure, but the user was not blocked. Please let me know.--LAA Fan^sign _review 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you reverted back. Thanks. --LAA Fan^sign _review 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Not sure how that happend. I had multiple browser windows open and the computer was lagging. Probably right clicked somewhere the (obviously) wrong Item on my watchlist. :(--Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The same thing happened to me yesterday. ;)--LAA Fan^sign _review 21:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal/blacklisting of Matrikon Inc

Hi hu12,

Trying to figure out why Matrikon Inc was added to the Wikipedia blacklist.

I can see that several of the external links submitted for French, Spanish, Chinese, and German pages were flagged as spam. These links were to language-specific video presentations on the subject matter; no registration, no products pushed. As such, I believe they were mistakenly flagged and should be reinstated, as there are very few language-specific resources available on this topic.

I also see that the most recent activity performed before deletion/blacklisting was addition of about 4 links involving industrial protocols to pages comparing those protocols with the OPC protocol on our blog. The end content was applicable and relevant so I'm not really sure why it acted as a catalyst to the blacklisting/purging of the entire company from Wikipedia. A click-through to the content would have shown a balanced overview comparing these protocols to each other. I'd leave a link to an example article, but I can't because of the blacklist.

As this seems to be simple misunderstanding, I would like the blacklist to be reconsidered.

Thank you.

Poking you for your opinion on a subject NOT concerning spam links

Hey Hu12. I want to poke your brain on a Wiki-thing that doesn't involve spam. There once was a user named Luminifer who created an article for a band called Pain Hertz. Mr. Luminifer is the main contributor to that page (pretty much the only contributor). Turns out Mr. Luminifer is a member of the band (no surprise) COI aside... Pain Hertz has been up'd for AfD. Mr. Luminifer has voted keep. Following this a suspicious account named Amalthya also voted keep. The vote is suspicious because it was only that account's second edit to the Wik (the first being 2+ years ago) Then another suspicious keep vote showed up this time from a shiny new account named Mozucat. This account had little-to-nil article space edits and no AfD edits prior to today. As it turns, out a simple Google search revealed that these 2 sparse accounts are both listed at Luminifer's Last.FM profile space as friends. And, Luminifer is listed as friends of these 2 new accounts on their Last.FM profiles. The entire AfD is starting to "odour-up" of a meat smell which is getting stronger as the debate stays active. I would like your opinion on whether this vote has been tainted enough to strike the meaty comments... or whether another process is available to weed out the burger-bunch and make the debate un-skewed by "bologna" votes. Is that enough meatpuppet wordations? :-) Appreciate your time reviewing this. Thanks! Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect in your assumptions about being "friends" (namespace coincidences across domains are interesting, but not conclusive, and if they are the same people, being friends on a social networking site is hardly a meaningful thing) - and also your deduction that Mozucat is a new user, as detailed by their contributions, which have occurred for a period of over a year. It is an interesting coincidence, but I have not sent out any last.fm messages - I would go so far as to say that because of the lack of notification done when the article was nominated for deletion, of course only obscure fans are going to notice that AfD. People on last.fm are likely to be people more active in this music scene as well. Regardless, it is not a ballot, so I'm not sure why you want/need the votes stricken from the record - why not leave that up to the admin? Regarding your claim that I'm a member of this band, apart from that being a violation of WP:OUTING, I'm not sure why you think so in the first place. Luminifer (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libs, canvassing and meat puppetry are very serious issues. If you have solid proof than you may file a WP:SPI, but not without good cause. If indeed Lunimifer is a member of the band then that is an egregious COI violation. Triplestop x3 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply. The COI issue, to me, was not as pressing an issue as the other. I was keen to AGF that any attempts to prove notability would be sincere whether it was a WP:COI violation or not. There were no violations of canvassing (within the Wikipedia talk pages) by the article creator or the suspect accounts. But external internet sites did show a strong possibility of collusion. It sets a precedence for doing account name searches when there is suspicion of vote-stacking. This AfD resulted in blatantly false accusations of WP:OUTING (likely to re-direct attention from the AfD itself). So care would have to be taken to make it clear that 'vote-stacking' investigations do take place... and results could tarnish accounts if they are caught. The WP:OUTING claim brought up during this AfD were bogus because the user making the claim had, in fact, outed himself. Writing a definitive guideline for "collusion seeking" would prove tricky to avoid this type of system gaming to happen again. It's all moot in the end as far as this AfD goes. The closing administrator said the meat-puppetry was obvious and those votes were rejected. And even if they had been included the article would have been deleted regardless. These sorts of tarnished wiki-processes take place every day. But at least we can still rid the project of a few spam links once and a while... eh Hu12. Have a nice, spam free, day! The Real Libs-speak politely 19:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Triplestop, Hu2... It is my feeling that a lot of what Libs has said here is false, but if you don't want to hear what my particular disagreements are, that's fine. I don't want to start even more trouble, as I've had enough of this site after that fiasco. Luminifer (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

For future reference, is there a CSD template I could have used for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nalxhal, or is it just one of those blatantly obvious cases that slides between the bins? Disclaimer: I ask out of curiosity and workload reduction, I really could not care less about whatever drama may be infesting speedy deletions this week. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find most speediable userpages fall into the following; {{Db-g1}} nonsense, {{Db-g2}} test pages, and {{Db-g11}} for userpage spam. Cases like User:Nalxhal with vios of WP:UP#COPIES, WP:MYSPACE or WP:NOTWEBHOST are also very common. There are no specific templates for those (that I'm aware of) so try and use this one, {{db|Put some reason here}}. May take a while longer, because it puts it in Category:Unspecified pages for speedy deletion, but at least it flexable. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That MfD is being reverted, could you address this? Triplestop x3 23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spambot

08:16, 20 May 2008 Hu12 protected Spambot ‎ (repeated vandalisn by anons [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary, nearly 18 months later. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion on talk:Spambot. --TS 00:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GLAM

In case you haven't noticed, there is a proposal to develop a WP:GLAM guideline (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, see m:GLAM) in this discussion. The idea is to advise experts from suitable institutions how they might contribute to articles, including how they might add links to their own institutions. I think the general plan is excellent, but obviously some care needs to be taken to avoid driving a tunnel through WP:EL because already it is sometimes difficult to explain why it is necessary to revert links added by SPA accounts. This is just FYI, no reply needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOC links

A person from New Zealand Department of Conservation has asked permission to fix broken links to their website. Given the mess around Filmtvfan, I am asking for wider feedback before we allow or deny this request. The request is at User:Conservation ranger. Please comment at User talk:Conservation ranger.-gadfium 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the note. Since the user has declared his COI and with yourself and other New Zealand editors are creating oversight, fixing broken existing links seems to be ok. However, Stuartyeates suggestion of a bot to deal with the redirects seems more practical. The addition of any new links seems better left to long time trusted editors such as yourself. One area this person from the DOC could be very helpful is in the area of photo's. Supplying quality pictures and images in the appropriate NZ articles is an area where User:Conservation ranger would be an great asset for Wikipedia, more so than links. May also be able to get additional oversight from Wikipedia:COI/N. I'll Post a few things over there also. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

askgeo.org links

I noticed this morning that there was a sudden proliferation of links to this site on US State pages. Everyone I've checked (so far) has been added by a different IP with no other edits. The site doesn't have ads (yet) but appears to be a one of those dime-a-dozen geography stat aggregator sites. I wouldn't be surprised if they added advertising later. What do you think? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

askgeo.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

AskGeo Inc, and the Domain as "Created On:06-Aug-2009 08:10:28 UTC"[1]. Seems like pure marketing/spam. WP:ELNO#4. Additionaly they are both citation spamming here and Image spamming on commons. Seems fairly sophisticated, for a new contributor. There's probably more to this, than AskGeo.

Some Accounts

Sakhani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

commons:Special:Contributions/Sakhani

Usgeowiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

commons:Special:Contributions/Usgeowiki Image spamming account

Hers a few IP's, I see you tagging the rest, COIBot picked up Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/askgeo.org--Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to revert all those - but please, do say something in the edit summary about it - "linkspam", or a link back to here - one at a time they appear to be perfectly reasonable and it's not until you realize that these links are proliferating like kudzu that you appreciate the problem. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that.;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a scraper site of ripping content from bea.gov. --Hu12 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a report and blacklisted the link. its just to widespread, obvious use of multiple sock/meat accounts and IP's galore... --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Thanks for taking care of this. JohnInDC (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started cleaning them up, but then had to leave the house. Thanks again!

Good catch! Is there any one over at commons that can have a closer look at commons:Special:Contributions/Usgeowiki and commons:Special:Contributions/Askgeowiki..?--Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dhaulashree.com

The Dhaulagiri spammer is back. I think that there is a case for blocking him. Viewfinder (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree,

Done. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam ref?

Hello, Hu12. I did not originally add the [http ://www.center4research.org/children11.html When Little Girls Become Women: Early Onset of Puberty in Girls] reference from center4research.org to the Causes section of the Precocious puberty article, but I would like to know why you consider it a spam ref. I see that the information in the Causes section starting with Bisphenol A (BPA) and ending with tumor is all from the center4research.org site as well, as seen in [http ://www.center4research.org/BPA.html this link]. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was origionaly spammed by Sub5nattys (talk · contribs) here and here consecutivly in the article Precocious puberty. Same with Bisphenol A, here. You'll note that all of Special:Contributions/Sub5nattys contribs are all Diana Zuckerman owned center4research/breastimplantinfo related. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunatly this is one account which was a Part of a larger spam campaignin of aprox 14 sockpuppete/meatpuppets Citation spamming wikipedia in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines in order to promote a single Organization, National Research Center.--Hu12 (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I take it you changed how I linked that source here on your talk page also because it is a spam ref? I understand now why you removed it from the Precocious puberty article; I already knew of our conflict of interest guideline. I guess it applies even when a different editor without a conflict of interest (in this case, myself) adds it back? And is it okay to leave the information from that source in the article? It is attributed to another source now, which I think is a source you added. Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection for Great power

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could please page protect Great power for a while to let things cool down. User:Lear 21 is constantly adding his additions to the page despite many, repeated requests to stop making unilateral changes and discuss on the Talk. We've been having a discussion amongst a several editors on the article Talk page to reach a consensus but he still continues to make unilateral changes/reverts and ignore all requests. Please have a look and thanks for looking into it. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Its only for a day. Hopefully thats enough time for everyone to agree. I also left a note on the talk page--Hu12 (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend, thanks for protecting the page for a short while. It seemed to initially encourage the more recalcitrant editors to discuss on the Talk page. However, things have definitely turned for the worse. User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson are reverting to POV pushing, repeated personal attacks, edit warring, abruptly "closing" discussions/prematurely "declaring" consensus to make a point. Could you look at the Talk and history once more? The two editors have been warned many times to not making any large scale changes until consensus is obtained and to discuss calmly yet the do just the opposite. This sort of disruptive editing has been going on for several weeks with no end in sight. Lear 21 in particularly has been blocked many times for edit warring in the past. Both curiously also have similar ways of making personal attacks on other editors have edit similar articles about the Germany and the EU. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12, I was wondering, if this here is the right place to come forward with a problem. As I see, user Nirvana888 made a request and several single sided statements here. In fact, me and others have made and argued for some changes at the article Great power. The arguments have been supported by a massive amount of credible, academic sources and were frequently rejected by users like Nirvana888. At the same time non-academic sources have been reinserted without comment. The level of contradiction in order to preserve a status quo seems obviously. This user also violated the 3RRR policies of Wikipedia by reverting every single edit no matter what content was changed. In my eyes the 4 reverts should be investigated at a neutral level. [2] [3] [4] [5]. What do you think ? Shouldn´t this behaviour be reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ? There are at least 5 other edits of Nirvana888 which comply to the same method of single sided reverts. KJohansson (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, with respect, you are clearly doing this to get back at me. As you can see on the talk, only you and Lear seem to support your contentious edits while everybody else has not supported them in their present state. Being disruptive to make a point will not get you anywhere and allow you to form a consensus earlier. Funny how you complain about reverts from multiple editors yet time and time again (once more today) have decided to flaunt consensus and revert to your "proposals". Nirvana888 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a request for comment. There does seem to be quite a bit of back and forth going on, and the most effective way, in my opinion, is consensus vote on the content in question through the dispute resolution process. Requests for comment on the talk page should be attempted. See this page how to RFC on an article talk page some examples are here. I see in this section, there is begining support for removing particular references. Consensus is king, achieve a clear consensus for keeping/removing particular content. --Hu12 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists

When I started this article after doing the research and writing, I found it had been deleted before - twice! The admin that closed the last AfD has retired, but you nominated the last version. Any advice? Maybe it should be nominated again, just to ensure proper discussion? The organization seems notable, and potentially there are several links to it from other Wikipedia articles. But it is for-profit, and reading the article after writing, it does seem a bit puffy, although this is just what turned up from a routine summary of web articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For profit companies can be notable just as non-profits can be spam-vertizing. Much better than the the deleted versions. Could just trim it down to just most reliable and verifyable sources since its fresh from your research, bu you don't realy need to. Did an ACAMS news search, book search and scholar turns up a few. You could poke the folks at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Slap a redirect on ACAMS and forget about it for a few days. I think you did a good job, especially on a challenging article such as this. --Hu12 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback - that is reassuring. I have added internal links. I will take your advice and leave it for a bit. Right now, don't know why, I am on a roll of making thumbnail articles on Nigerian senators. Sort of a complex and interesting subject, with very little coverage so far. I started the article because it seemed like an obvious redlink from Independent Corrupt Practices Commission, which I started because it was a redlink from Ghali Umar Na'Abba, which was a redlink from Eziuche Ubani, a redlink from Nuhu Aliyu ... Aymatth2 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dixon (industrial designer)

Hi Hu12! A biography which you have either created, contributed to, or edited, is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changes related to bedeutung

Hi there Hu12,

In the process of cleaning up some material which you thought were spam, you ended up deleting information wholesale. Briefly: you reverted Bedeutung's page to a previous state, whereas since the beginning of September, Bedeutung is more than a magazine, incorporating three projects which were not mentioned in the page that you reverted to. Second, you deleted the link to an exclusive Martin Durkin interview, again to the same magazine. Now, Durkin gives an interview once in a blue moon and this particular one is not only very extensive, but it also sheds a lot of light on the controversy of his Swindle documentary. Now, if wikipedia users are deprived of this information, i do not see how it is conducive to better/more objective information.

I have, thus, reverted both pages to their previous state. I hope upon further inspection you will realize the usefulness of doing so.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.83.221.203 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of promoting bedeutung.co.uk and is considered WP:Spam.

Spam Accounts

Multiple instances of spam and abuse on wikipedia including, but not limited to;
SPAM
- External link spamming
- Source soliciting
External links policy
- Advertising and conflicts of interest
Conflict of interest
What Wikipedia is not
- Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
SOCK
- Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
- 'Role' accounts
Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
- Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.

It has become apparently clear that your multiple accounts and IP's are only using Wikipedia for advertising and promotional purposes. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote bedeutung.co.uk --Hu12 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent block per a 3RR case

Hello Hu12. I agree with your recent action about an editor at Fox News Channel. Due to temporary 3RR fatigue I haven't followed up lately at the noticeboard and I've not been tracking CAT:RFU, but I don't think there is a case for his unblock. It is good whenever more admins show up at AN3, so there is a diversity of approaches. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agreed with your reasoning when it was first reported, however it was after, when the warnings and your comments were ignored by IndyObserverther.... it became a slippery slope. --Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Michaelorland

Um, does User:Michaelorland really justify a block? While the user was providing links to his/her own site on a large number of talk pages, it was entirely in good faith, seeking discussion on whether or not the links were appropriate. I don't believe that this user was intending to advertise their website, but figured that the ext link might be useful in an article, and rather than spamming, asked for discussion. I think that it would have been far more constructive to just reply "no, WP is not for links like that" and be done with it; the user's friendly and constructive comments lead me to believe that he/she would have complied, and the situation would be resolved (begging the question that such links are not appropriate, which they possibly are (I'm not all that familiar with ext link policy)). -M.Nelson (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here for a similiar matter. I noticed your reversion of his edit to the external links noticeboard, but the posting appeared in good faith and it also appeared to make appropriate use of the board. No opinion on the block for talkpage spamming, but perhaps you should let the discussion take place at ELN and then we could revisit individual pages if the link is deemed acceptable (I haven't viewed it yet so I'm impartial here). Them From Space 19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Spam canvassing talkpages and Source soliciting, no matter how nicely the user "appears" to ask is no different than mass spamming articles. Blocked per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption; Persistent spamming. "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.'

I'll unblock, to allow for discussion on Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Concert_databases_.28e.g._Songkick.29, however if this discussion starts to spread away from that centralized discussion, we should reconsider...thanks for the notes;)--Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a note to join the discussion @ EL/N...--Hu12 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and rvt spam Question

Curious if you could elaborate why you marked my contribution as a neutrality problem and Rvt spam (I couldn't find anything specific on the talk page - only the history note with your username) . I'm new to the Wikipedia community, so if you could explain I'll work on the contribution further to make sure it's within the guidelines. Thanks for your tips and advice Aestheticmanagement (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam was from an IP, 77.83.200.81, unrelated to your edits. Unfortunatly your username implies that this article has been done by a company or group, and may violate our username policy. Looking through your contributions as a whole it appears you may have a conflict of interest with the subject Warren Neidich? --Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for clarifying a bit, as for my username, I had no idea there was a guideline, but that just happens to be the name i use to describe an artistic practice, but it's private and not related to a group. should this be changed for an individual name? I have made only one contribution to Wikipedia as of yet, I'm in the arts field and therefore am interested in creating profiles for artists practices that are interesting for the discourse - but that have some notability internationally (and therefore source-able). (I'm not a gallerist or dealer, but an artist, so I do not profit from this, and have not written a profile about myself) - does that still warrant a COI? Thanks in advance for your suggestions. Aestheticmanagement (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to use your real name ect.., however if you do have COI, its best to declare it on your userpage. If you are affiliated with some of the people, or things you plan to write about, it may be considered a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

Your first article looks very good, so your off to a good start. There is nothing wrong with writing within a subject you have knowledge of, that in itself is not a COI. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so I encourage you to participate and contribute freely. To keep article from being deleted be sure they meet includion criteria such as, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. I've added a helpful instuctions to your talkpage, and removed the COI tag from the article. If you need assistance or have further questions, let me know I'll try and help, or point you in the right direction.--Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, that was very kind of you. I just happened to be the CU who was online; I'm sure any one of us would have worked with the same alacrity. It's nice to see our work appreciated :) -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still was impressively fast. Never hurts to be reminded that your work is appreciated. Thanks again;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotices

Hi Hu
I noticed you semi protected Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and others. Just for the future, all editnotices are already protected by the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, which means that only admins and account creators can edit them. Full protection might be sensible for namespace-wide edit notices or high-profile editnotices even though account creators are quite trusted users, but semi-protection won't have any effect.
Cheers, Amalthea 19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I forgot all about that...LOL.. thanks for the reminder. I guess there's no reason to revert back and unprotect then? or would doing so just a futile waste of time?--Hu12 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just leave them as they are, doesn't hurt.
Cheers, Amalthea 20:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dysfunctional?

Hi Hu12, I happened to notice[6] and [7] recently. It probably deserves a closer look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Mix of spam. --Hu12 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Packer

I added some references to The Packer, which I think establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture Style

Furniture Style magazine has ceased publication. I added two references to the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of OPCTI Page

Hi Hu12! I hope this finds you well. I'm writing to inquire about your removal of the OPCTI page. I see that you've cited that it falls under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I don't think this is the case, as I have no personal affiliation with the company, and although they are indeed a company, you'll see that the information that I uploaded about them was only in reference to the free supports they offer. As you know, OPC as a process is very technical, and so I think that there is great use to the readers of OPC information to know that these resources exist.

I've also noticed that you've removed the OCPTI links from some other OPC related articles. As you'll see from those links, they were simply links to items like the Glossary of Terms and free resources for OPC users. There is no advertisement here, this is purely a resource for other users. As you'll notice under some OPC related Wiki sites, there are many companies listed - I would think that providing a link to free resources is less of an issue than some of the other companies that are listed there that don't offer free resources...? I've found OPCTI's free resources very helpful to our plant, and would like to see these resources available to others.

Would love your feedback on this. Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiupdater1234 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#opcti.com and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dpc1962/Archive

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote OPC Training Institute, OPCTI.--Hu12 (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

list

Hello You removed a list that I did on the Flash_CMS page. Here is the version with the list: [[8]] Can you explain me why you say it is not wikipedia? It took me a lot of time to do it :( And it is a really valuable information based on tests I did and my opinions as an expert in that field (Flash CMS - I have references). Sorry if it is a stupid question... A link to a section of WP:NOT page would be great. Thank you lexoyo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexoyo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTLINK--Hu12 (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Song Cloth"

This page might give a good understanding of what he was doing: http://www.bluehatseo.com/how-to-overthrow-a-wikipedia-result/ Triplestop x3 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sporting Index"

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me understand why you deleted the Sporting Index page I created. I can't see how it is advertising or promotion.

Cheers, Tristan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.140.34 (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Sporting_Index_Ltd_Spam
SPAM
- Advertisements masquerading as articles
- Advertising and conflicts of interest
Conflict of interest
What Wikipedia is not
- Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
SOCK
- Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
- 'Role' accounts
Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
- Persistent spamming
- Breaching the sock puppetry policy;
- Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote "Sporting Index" .--Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the long list there, But I still believe the page has been deleted unfairly. The page itself, reference links or mentions in other articles were not to aid the company in advertising or promotion as they were true facts, not opinions. I also find it interesting to see that other spread betting firms such as IG Index are allowed a wikipedia page but not Sporting Index which seems very biased. I also found this when reading up your reasons why it was deleted:

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

Sorry to quote rules to you as i'm sure you know them off by heart but I thought I should point out the last sentence which clearly states that having a company as the subject does not qualify an artcile to be labelled as advertising or promotion and therefore deleted. If the page in question needs to be editted before it is deemed as acceptable by you I would be happy to do so, but as it stands now it seems very unfair.

Cheers, Tristan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.140.34 (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Experiencedearth

Hi Hu12,

I saw that you added a spam notice to this user's talk page. Are you sure that was supposed to be that user? I looked at their contributions and I haven't seen anything recent. OTOH I have had problems with "yourhandymanzone" and that user, so I wasn't sure. Are they editing from multiple accounts or somesuch? User A1 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User A1. See Spam case. Users MO is "citation" spamming using throw-away sock accounts, deceptively adding his/her related sites along with potential legitimate references. The site is essentialy a scraper sites, low value and would not pass WP:RS or WP:V. I,ve opened a checkuser case on this user, however its fairly evident the accounts are all the same site owner using wikipedia to promote his/her site.--Hu12 (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your input and follow up on this matter. Regards. dissolve ^talk 05:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Glad you reported. ;) cheers--Hu12 (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be?!? You don't have one of these yet???

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Hu12 - Thank you for all the work you do to fight spam. Not only do you find it yourself, report it to the noticeboard, and clean it up -- you also quickly act on the spam reported by other editors. Your impressive editing record (234 out out of the last 500 edits to WT:WPSPAM) is an amazing 47% of the entries over the last 1.5 months. I appreciate all the time you put in and your level of activity and involvement sets a great example for other admins and editors alike. 7 06:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Like it alot, much appreciated!--Hu12 (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for ConceptDraw MINDMAP

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ConceptDraw MINDMAP. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. There are also two other ConceptDraw articles. Tim Song (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analyx & CrowdWorx

Dear Hu12, my name is Sascha, I am the co-founder of the company Analyx. I have just registered in order to kindly ask you to reconsider your decision to initiate the deletion of all traces of Analyx from the English and German Wikipedia sites.

Please do not get me wrong, I clearly support Wikipedia's standards in terms of merely advertising content and no indication of importance. Following this, I fully understand your decision to delete the entry for CrowdWorx that was indeed inserted by an overambitious colleague of mine. Sincere apologies for this!

However, for the other 3 deletions you performed or initiated, please kindly consider the following points:

Regarding the Analyx company entry:
- To my knowledge, this entry was created and further edited by research students at the University of Economics in Poznan and the University of Technology Dresden, which is why it mostly emphasizes our affiliation with academic research projects such as this [9]. In case this would require rewriting to meet Wikipedia's standards, I would encourage to mark it as such.
- The reason for its speedy deletion, however, was lack of notability/importance according to the deletion log. I am fully fine with this if it would apply equally. But a short search yields multiple companies of our size and even our immediate business sector (predictive analytics) being left on Wikipedia even with less supporting reference in many cases. Could you help me understand the standards for this?

Further, you performed two deletions on [10]. In both cases, I would argue that they are adding relevant encyclopedic knowledge on the subject of prediction markets:
- You deleted the reference to a paper by Aleksandar Ivanov. He is a renowned expert on prediction markets in Europe and the paper was published in the Journal of Business Forecasting, an American Journal widely read by academics and practicioners alike. Why was it deleted and the other papers were not? Would it be in order to bring it back without the www-link?
- You further deleted the link to the CrowdWorx library. This is a collection of academic papers on the subject - as far as I know one of the most extensive ones publicly available. You will notice that the library contains no single case study or piece of advertising. Does the fact that it is hosted on a "commercial" site constitute the problem? If yes, then the same issue appears here [11], no?

Thanks indeed for your reply, --Sascha S (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search analytics edit

Hi Hu12,

Thanks for looking at the search analytics article. Can you please give more explanation, however, about your edits? You mentioned "cleanup, remove non article entries WP:NOTLINK" as the reason for deleting several of the services compared. It seems like comparing services without article entries could be useful as a survey of the industry is more notable than it's several and changing players. Here's an example of a useful page that compares several things that aren't important enough for their own wiki page.

Thanks,

CrizCraig (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all entries must be notable. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for advertising. Triplestop x3 22:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the notability of the article was in question. Only a few rows of the comparison table were deleted. However, the advertising article notes that Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives. It seems that showing less alternatives based on which ones are notable enough for their own topic limits this article's worth. CrizCraig (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for ConceptDraw articles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ConceptDraw articles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Please give users an assumption of good faith when it comes to spam reports, as the project itself suggests.

Your spam report without notifying the bot owner or putting a notice on the bot's talk page and without any spam contributions by the one you accuse of spam (the bot) reads like a hostile attack, "I expect this site will soon be riddle with adsense and advertising, monitized by leeching off wikipedia for traffic." You've also posted this in two forums, which is unnecessary. A discussion is occurring.

When something is in the discussion stage, agf, and an actual discussion can be had and can benefit the wikipedia community by displaying a professional attitude toward newbies and experts. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF does not require that editors assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.

As stated in the bots Function overview;

"We have extensively linked many brain regions to wikipedia, but we want to have hyperlinks in wikipedia to our project, the ConnectomeWiki as well."

Explicitly"...we want to have hyperlinks in wikipedia to our project, the ConnectomeWiki...". Unidesigner (talk · contribs) is clearly a Single-purpose account, with no edits outside promoting "ConnectomeWiki". In fact, all his edits are "ConnectomeWiki" related, and this post identifies him as the webmaster (who is this user) which makes this a clear Conflict of interest. Since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and based on this users edit history, Unidesigner seems to exist for the sole and primary purpose of promoting "ConnectomeWiki" in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Additionaly, Conflating your Wikipedia identity with the identity of an IP address is not recommended. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case of any misunderstanding, please note that User:IP69.226.103.13 is not connected with the ConnectomeWiki case. Here is some background that I recently posted at ANI. IP69.226.103.13 has performed many useful functions for Wikipedia, but inadvertently confuses us because they do not really want to be a logged-on user and so have used a small number of IP addresses as well as the IP69.226.103.13 name. The user follows WP:BRFA and became aware of ConnectomeWiki there. I note also that Unidesigner is probably just misguided; when challenged, the user's responses have been extremely appropriate – the problem is that they just have not engaged with Wikipedia other than their attempt to link to their project. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You found what's transparently obvious because it's not hidden.

So, please, don't bite the newcomers when it's an opportunity to teach someone something positive about the wikipedia community. Assume Good Faith can also be the first step in civility on wikipedia, imo.

This hostility toward new editors is why some wikipedia editors think it is time to test the waters to what it is like to be a newcomer at wikipedia.[12]

"On 4 September, Gene McKenna, a blogger and occasional Wikipedian (User:Mckennagene), posted his opinions regarding bullying treatment on Wikipedia, "Bullypedia, A Wikipedian Who’s Tired of Getting Beat Up"."

Wikipdia is not a battleground.

I did read the rules about user names before I picked mine. So did the many administrators and bureaucrats I've interacted with since I chose the user name. It looks different in edit histories than actual IPs, and clicking on it takes you to my user page rather than to my contributions. I don't use it very often, and I don't intend to keep using, but rather I intend to continue editing as an actual IP.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of those things, and advise you to be aware aware of Accusing others of bad faith. I've provided reasoned explaination with concise non-assumptive evidence. No one has been bullied, beat up, battled, bitten nor has civility been breached, as you imply. Seems you may be projecting past personal issues, and my user talk page isn't a platform for that. Thanks for the explaination of your username. Additionaly it appears the Bot issue is now stale. I think it best we all move on to more productive endevors. --Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To block or not to block?

Hey I've been in a discussion via IRC with User:Blueflowerarts (A user you blocked), his name and his contributions are of course violations of WP:COI; however the links he seems to be adding, are in line with WP:EL. What is your opinion? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was Username blocked. Additionaly we have to consider WP:EL's Advertising and conflicts of interest. As for the links, they "look" fine. A closer look, for example in Major Jackson the link http://www.blueflowerarts.com/major-jackson is used. I get 9 other sites with the same content as in the blueflowerarts link above. Of that list, the prefferable link would be http://cwp.fas.nyu.edu/object/cwp.faculty.MajorJackson. Not sure blueflowerarts.com is athorative or unique. Content may be potentialy scrapped, from other more reliable sources. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Well thanks for your help. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

co-dot-cc

Hello... a favour to ask. The co-dot-cc domain is supposed to be blacklisted on Meta (i.e. site-wide), but when I used it as a test I was able to add links to test-dot-co-dot-cc. I've added a line to the local blacklist as a temporary measure while I follow up on Meta, but it seems to only block the actual co-dot-cc, and not subdomains. Any suggestions? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if it was recently removed, with a log "Far too many false positives or something; it's an entire ccTLD". may want to remake the case?--Hu12 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks as if a discussion has already begun. m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#co.cc_again --Hu12 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tweaked the entry here (\b.co\.cc\b) which seem sto work locally, and have added a comment at Mate. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to remove sockpuppeteer label from my talk page

HU12 Just to let you know I removed the sockpuppeteer label, however I was told that I should have asked your permision to do so. Is it possible for it to stay off of the page? I was blocked for a week and the punishment was accepted. --Spectre7277 (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic.2Fsite_ban_proposal_for_user_Spectre7277--Hu12 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case bidding

A new user (YesIamalawyer (talk · contribs)) edited some articles adding links to bidsfromlawyers.com. I undid the edits as linkspam, but I do not know what to do with Case bidding which is a new article with the linkspam built in. Note that the user created Case bidding services which was apparently a copyvio, and was then blanked and speedied. Any suggestions? Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case bidding, My thoughts on it...--Hu12 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blacklist thanks

thanks. I'm not the antispam king you are, I knew there was a better way to format it. tedder (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your surely faster than me (report & BL). Added the the other link from the previous case, just incase. Youve probably see it but WP:BLACK#Linking_to_WikiProject_Spam_requests covers the spam template. For WP:ELN reports there's Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Noticeboard#Template_for_linking_and_logging. fyi. thanks again;)--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist thanks (2)

Ah, now that is how it is done. Thank you, you are wonderful. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting! If variations (generic TLD's or URL redirectors) of the offending URL's start re-appearing. please report those also. The pattern of disruption shown by this person would indicate there is a good chance that he'll attempt to work around the Blacklisting. Lets hope not. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

Hello. Could you, please, give me rollback rights? I am not active here from time to time, but primarily I revert vandal edits, that isn't very convenient without the flag. Thanks.--//microcell 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't mind, my request is already failed.

--//microcell 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear. Try it again in a month or so.--Hu12 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squinchpix.com

Hello Hu12. Please don't delete my links. They are to relevant and good pictures (sometimes the best on the web). There are no ads on my site but there are about 3000 links BACK to wikipedia from my site. I have contributed articles (Cangiante, sfumato) to wikipedia and I want to contribute many more (such as combining and rewriting 'Trajans Forum' and 'Trajans Market' which I am doing right now). I am not malicious; I have helped to delete spammers in the past and will do so in the future. I am a good Wiki citizen. I reverted your deletion of the link to squinchpix at 'Trajan's Forum' (extensive and useful pictures of the 'Via Biberatica'). I don't think I deserve to be deleted. I am aware of the problem of spam on Wiki but this is not that. On the other hand you may want to go after the 24,000 links that History Channel has on Wiki. Those go to the History Channel home page and are never useful. Best, Dante4848 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Hu, I've removed several more links to this site. This account appears to have self-identified as being Robert Consoli, the site's owner, and as such is the same individual who operated the account Rconsoli. That account was warned against spamming by Triplestop after being used exclusively to add links to the site, which were also removed. A discussion can be found in Beetstra's talk page archives. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Ckatz. I've added this report, seems there is some cross wiki spamming involved here also. If the additions continue;

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
- Persistent spamming
- Breaching the sock puppetry policy;
- Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.

--Hu12 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WatchIndiaTV

Hello. I believe it is customary that when you nominate an article for deletion, you generally notify those editors that created or had a significant contribution to that article. As you managed to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam, I feel this is borderline canvassing and I would have appreciated you notifying me on my talk page that you had nominated the article for deletion. I hope that the reason I didn't get a notification was because you assumed I had eyes on the article and would see it anyway, and in good faith I'd like to believe that, but please be sure to notify me next time you nominate an article for deletion that I have had significant recent contributions to. Thanks, v/r--TParis00ap (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best practice to wait for an administrator to review speedy candidates, rather than removal and decline on a a page that did seem to meets such criteria. While your good faith efforts at improving the article are noted, please refrain from removing speedy tags in the future. One can work on articles while speedy (or afd) tags are in place. Additionaly, there seems to be significant long term link-spam abuse by this organization that go beyond this one article. That being said, I'll be happy to drop a note on your talk in the future if an article is nominated that you have significantly contributed to. thanks for the note--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read WP:CSD, you would note the fifth paragraph "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. To avoid speedy deletion, make sure that articles provide both content and context." As I am not the creator of the article, I am well within my rights as an editor to remove a speedy tag. Also, G11 says "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." I felt that the first paragraph was not promotional and by removing the promotional material, there was still a stub. Thanks for notifying me in the future though.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation spam

I agree with your new section in Wikipedia:Spam. However, you included a link to SEO, which is a disambiguation page. Of the meanings listed there the only one which seemed relevant was Search engine optimization, so I have substituted a direct link to there. If I was wrong please correct it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the link target James, Search engine optimization was the intended page. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectInsight

Hello, I have been contributing to ProjectInsight, adding references to improve the notability of the article. While updating the article to add notable references, I may have unintentionally changed the tone of the article to a less neutral point of view. For example, should the reference to the Red Herring finalist be removed? The sentence was intended to show notability of the product. Can you please point out the areas of the article that are not neutral and should be changed? I currently plan on removing the Red Herring reference and changing some of the language in the article to make it as factual and neutral as possible. Thanks for your help.--SurfAndSwim (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re warning message

I have replied to your warning message on my discussion page. Please check it out. Thank you. Stratshaw (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

I thank you for your detailed response to the latest post on my talk page. It was very gracious of you to respond.Stratshaw (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing User:Worldenc content

I thought you might like to know that some of the removal of the mapzones.org content by User:Worldenc is not always working. In some cases (like here and here), your edit just reverted to a larger image of the same content. I assume it is because the editor added the content and then resized it later. I'm not sure why it does not always work, but I thought you would want to know. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I figured that some wouldent work. There are thousands of this users spam, unfortunatly once its down to a manageable size, I'll have go back through and remove those that didn't revert. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll try to help out where I can in removing some of the edits. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated ;) --Hu12 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that many of Worldenc's edits can't be "undone" because of subsequent edits to the "Demographics" sections of the articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the removal of demographic charts from several Sonoma County municipalities. While I acknowledge that your deletions were done in good faith, and I can see that such detail might not be warranted in the case of small unincorporated villages, I think that, at least in the case of larger cities and towns, the charts are appropriate content for an encyclopedia. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to inform you that I've started a thread here about Worldenc's charts. If you could take a look, that'd be great. Killiondude (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, massive rollback attempts need to be taken with greater caution, which I don't believe you used. Reverts like this are inappropriate. Killiondude (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a returning spammer(Current discussion) from a previous spam case. Also see *previous Commons spam case. Curent discussion can be found on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a missing author's name above, "Stepheng3". --Colfer2 (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we blocking this editor? I had doubts about his contributions, but why is his population charts, etc. labeled WP:SPAM? I've got a large bunch that I haven't reverted in the articles I am tracking. He's done hundreds, if not thousands. (Not sure why we are using your page as the discussion page about Worldenc! Sorry about that!).Student7 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This users been blocked, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Evidence.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the lead in identifying and helping Wikipedia get rid of this material. I was mystified originally and am far from naive. I had figured him for an energetic newbie. But he really had me on this one! At best, the charts were unreadable. That annoyed me but I didn't quite know what to do about it. Can a bot be constructed to purge charts? I', sure you've thought of this already. Student7 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all have been deleted over at commons. They have a delinking bot here on en.wikipedia which should have removed any remaining ones. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the time and effort you put into this, Hu12. --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

firedepartmentphotography.com

Please check Tctrenr and 70.161.19.169. Sole Soul (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply. I was waiting to see if the additions continued. As you've probably seen already, user has his final/only warning. No additions since that, but keep an eye out. Good work! Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search analytics edit 2nd time

Hi Hu12,

I undid your edit to this article. My original reasoning from the first time is above and was never responded to. Please respond before editing again.

Thanks,

Craig

CrizCraig (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the post here when I looked at your contributions history - you may want to move this discussion to the article talk page at Talk:Search analytics.

Please note that Wikipedia:ARTSPAM#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles is not applicable here. What is applicable is notability, as defined under WP:CORP. The additional entries have not established notability under that guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barek,

Thanks for your response. Being that these are merely entries in a table, are you sure they need to meet the notability guidelines individually? The first sentence of WP:CORP says This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. However these entries are not the subject of an article. They are merely entries in a table. I have moved this discussion to the search analytics discussion page. Talk:Search analytics

Thanks,

Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrizCraig (talk • contribs) 00:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the information you gave at Zodiac killer. I was not aware of it so I appreciate the heads up on the situation. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I added another comment there. We all assume people come to wikipedia to help build an encyclopedia, it's unfortunate when thats not the case. Thanks for the note ;)--Hu12 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw thanks. I know I've removed that site before added by IP accounts. I will continue to if I see it again. It is unfortunate that we can't figure out a way to stop editors who aren't here for the good of the project. But I think we do make a good dent in the problems. :) Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you have a vendetta against me. But please set that aside and look at the history of the page. For many years a book by Doug Oswell and Michael Rusconi called "DR. Zodiac" was there. That book is out of date, and a new version called "The Unabomber and the Zodiac" by Oswell has been published, AND ALL I DID WAS ADD THE NEW VERSION. How is that not meeting the criteria? By what right to you commit vandalism and censorship and remove a valid book - THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR YEARS - from the entry? Yes, I thought an external link to a valuable research site, a free no ads site, should be added, and tried several times, others took it down, now I give up. But don't let your anger or bias against me lead you to do the wrong thing. Add the book. Akwilks (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view...a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate.

Characteristics of problem editors

You repeatedly undo the "vandalism" of others.: Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion.
You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".: This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion.
You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.: Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.

WP:OTHERLINKS

"But the book has been here for a long time.": There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed your spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep it in.

You've been asked to stop, yet you continue. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Equaly Wikipedia is not a place to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell

Your contributions to wikipedia under Special:Contributions/Akwilks and the multiple IP's, consist entirely of spamming http://unazod.com and adding WP:BOOKSPAM related to Doug Oswell. Looking through those contributions as a whole, reveals they all are unazod.com and Doug Oswell related only. Sadly, all of your article and talkpage contributions are Only about getting unazod.com and Doug Oswell included in articles.--Hu12 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the book years ago. The book meets the criteria for inclusion. Will you tell us why you remove it? You are an amazongly petty and vindictive person. How does it not meet the critieria for inclusion? It is a book about the Zodiac case, has been discussed and written about, was even on TV. So why remove it? By your vendetta you have given 100 times more space and publicity than if you had just left the mention up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.183.180 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of LegalZoom

The article LegalZoom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet notability requirements.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Hi - is there anything I can do to help out at WPSPAM, more than just reporting sites like I have been? Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do the cleanup or if it's better to leave it there so you guys can do your magic and figure out what else the spammers are doing. Speaking of which - how do you do what you do? I mean, how are you finding the other related spam servers or users or google pub-ids? Are those things I'm supposed to be doing when I report? Want to help more, just not sure how. Let me know if there's anything I can do. 7 08:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 7. If you catch spam, nothing wrong with cleaning it up. Just be sure to use an applicable edit summary. One summary I use is "revert multi-article spam by (user name) per WP:EL, WP:SPAM". Get Navigation popups, this will help you alot, add it to your User:7/monobook.js. the linksearch is a great tool to track down other accounts/instances where the link has been added (helps build a comprehensive report). Unfortunatly it requires going through article histories (Navigation popups helps here). spam filter always logs spam activity. recent changes, look for summaries like "external links", "references" or "further reading". You could digg through the old project spam archives see if any spam has returned (warning; some pages are so big it may crash your browser, no joke). Adsense Id's are helpful when the sites are related to a single owner, thats just one way to comfirm the connection. Lets say an IP is adding one link over multiple pages (spammylink.com), check if the IP has added a different domain other than spammylink.com, then linksearch that link also. chances are you'll find more IP's adding multiple related sites. NAVpopups also have a "whatLinksHere " feature, interesting info can be found. Spam hunting can be alot of research (digging through article histories) and if you like that, it can be kind of fun while helping the project. Thats all I can think of now. I think your doing a great job and think its great you wan't to get more involved! ;)--Hu12 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do use popups and will try to master the linksearch feature. A few more specific questions:

I understand what the pubID is with google (I have one myself) just not sure how you are finding it, and how you are discovering other links which share the same pubID to add them to the list.
If I cleanup the spam myself, I assume I should still file a spam report? Otherwise how/when will someone know to track it.
Similar to the question above, who decides when something is worth of blacklisting? I'm assuming only an admin can add to the BL. Seems to me like the CDAC spam that I have flagged (currently 36 links) is pretty bad.
Whats the diff between linksummary and linksummarylive? Instructions say to use linksummary, but I see you guys changing to "live" frequnetly. Should I use live directly or leave it to you?

Sorry for all the Qs, and thanks for the help. 7 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense ID you can view the source code or "right" click the ad and open properties. the url will have the pub ID in it (doesnt click through). Some are found easily when multiple sites are added by a user, however spam search will show any matching report with the same pubID. If you cleanup spam, you should still reort it, add the linksummaryLive, so its searchable in linksearch. There is a link called "tracked" (in linksummary), this also does the same thing but shows everywhere where the tracked domain is in the linksummary template. If there is enough abuse, over a period of time and you think a site should be blacklisted, report it, and remove the "Live" in any linksummary you reported. this does not need to be done in archives. When tagging spammers, it'll help if you leave a "linksummaryLive" template with the warning, or formulate your own, like;

==Additions of http://.spammydomain ==

{{subst:uw-spam1}}--~~~~

Leaving a link or template, can help find IP's and accounts, months later. when they come back you can find the other instances of abuse. The CDAC seems weak for blacklisting, despite the volume of links, the account is blocked. If the account comes back under an IP or block evades with another userAcount, the case for blacklisting is greater. If youve removed all the links चंद्रकांत_धुतडमल (talk · contribs) added, Linksearch again and see who added the others.... may be something there, but may not.Don't mind the Q's, hopefuly the answers help.--Hu12 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gigs

I have brought the situation to [ANI. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I've replied. --Hu12 (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COIbot help

Question: How can I submit a link to be scanned for a COIbot report? The URL in question is reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#medicanalife.com. From what I can find so far from the sampling of links that I've checked, all links to the URL have been added by a single IP range; but rather than manually checking each link addition, I was hoping to let COIbot do the research for me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should have the coibot data shortly --Hu12 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, much appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, the trick is User:COIBot/Poke. Add the link in a linksummary template, and wait until COIBot has worked through the queue (after that you can remove the link). Occasionally it misses the edit, if so, after some time just add the linksummary template with the link again. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, it appears that only admins can edit that page. Back in October, I turned down an offer by Hu12 to have an RfA submitted for me. I mentioned in October that I may reconsider by spring or summer of next year, if anyone is still willing to nominate me by that time. This tool gives me one more reason to consider. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In very small characters, we are working on a search system in php for the database, no need anymore for custom made reports ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, I do hope you reconsider I want to Undelete this and make it live. Beetstra, I like the sound of that idea... ;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I am adding some examples more that I can think of, just thought of two regarding 'experiments in de-blacklisting' (though not conducted in that way). If you know some, they may be worth adding, they make nice background information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can come up with.--Hu12 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if these help, some examples of circumventing the blacklist?

circumventing Would be the spammers idea of de-blacklisting..LOL. I'll keep looking.--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the the case of the Beer Judge Certification Program (Spam case). Was BL'd the 24 August 2009 the abuse log shows it continued after removal on the 25th. However there still remains 64 bjc links and 141 of the other. --Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would think there might be cases where Xlink bot request didn't work and spamming continued. Perhaps not in this case, but would think there are cases where there was clear evidence and abuse to justify blacklisting, but at an attempt to "experiment", was adding to Xlinkbot first? This could illustrate an 'experiment in de-blacklisting' indirectly. --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a bit

Hi Hu12, I've just read the talk page at Theodore Kaczynski about the additional request again from User:Akwilks to add the unazod.com website for the article. I just found that this editor went to AGK. What I am concerned with is that I did tell Akwilks to be bold and add it to the article. That he uses my comment to be bold and writes to AGK like this is a content dispute between just the two of you is a major problem. As far as I can tell, there have been good responses by many different editors and consensus has been consistent to what you have said, that the site and the information is being spammed and does not belong on the site at all.

Did you get the unazod site black or white listed? I am becoming concerned with this editor since what he wrote to AGK is cherry picked comments from others like me. I said something after telling him to be bold which he totally ignored or didn't say. I think this editor is falling into the area of a tenacious editor with a possible conflict of interest and a host of other policy breaches. In closing, I don't know if you want to respond to that thread or not but I feel it is respectful for you to know about that thread that talks about you by name with a title of Arbitration. I wasn't named but I knew he was talking about me about being the one who told him add it. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you letting me know about it. It seems AGK has read the discussions (so it seems), so there is little reason to repost the obvious. Don't worry about all this. As you said, consensus has been consistant. Understand, he wouldent have had to resort to spamming and continued talk page source solicitation, if consensus was for it. Akwilks even deleted comments to hide his inapropriate behavior just munutes before posting over on AGK's page. Akwilks is just going through the Grieving process. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never read the WP:GRIEF before, thanks. I enjoyed the read! What part of the Grieving process do you think we are at? I hope we are near the end of it. :) Well take care and thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 <center><small>'''''Support this page by clicking on this advertisement. Receive a "free" userbox!!'''''</small></center>
-== Quation ==
+== Question ==
 My materials that i post on wikipedia keeps getting deleted by you. What do i need to do to keep it live and preventing it from getting deleted?