Jump to content

User talk:Hu12: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
JenEda (talk | contribs)
24 edits
No edit summary
JenEda (talk | contribs)
24 edits
No edit summary
Line 589: Line 589:
Could it be he was waiting for the tide to settle to resume or is it just a coincidence. Anyway, keep up the good work - --[[User:VascoAmaral|Vasco Amaral]] ([[User talk:VascoAmaral|talk]]) 23:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Could it be he was waiting for the tide to settle to resume or is it just a coincidence. Anyway, keep up the good work - --[[User:VascoAmaral|Vasco Amaral]] ([[User talk:VascoAmaral|talk]]) 23:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for reverting it, Vasco. He only added that one, so he may be testing the waters. thanks again--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12#top|talk]]) 00:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for reverting it, Vasco. He only added that one, so he may be testing the waters. thanks again--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12#top|talk]]) 00:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

==Newcomer Does Not Deserve Block For Ignorance --
It is not my intent to spam or allude to anything but to try and understand the appropriate method for articles to be submitted for the Seazoria Discovery. The discoverer is not computer savvy enough to understand the wikipedia methods. I will not be publishing the pages, he will be doing the articles but for him to do them I need to understand the process to show him how. I am sorry you find it necessary to belittle someone that is new to this forum and trying to self educate by asking questions. The Seazoria pages are not self promoting,or for the primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. This is a historical discovery that has actual scientific facts and data surrounding this discovery and worthy of being in an encyclopedia environment. I guess maybe I posted to the wrong board to ask "newbie" type questions. My apologies.. Where should I have started? Many of you have been doing the admin duties and write-ups for a long time, I am merely trying to understand the process so that I may assist another in posting the article in the correct place with the correct citations. You mention adding the url to the Xlinkbot, what is that?? The way it is worded sounds to me that you are already planning to block it. Which in turn would prevent the real accurate information from being shared with the world about this historical discovery, or any articles pertaining to this discovery. Is my assumption correct? The Content is verifiable, reliable and not being submitted by me. So Why Xlinkbot it? [[User:JenEda|JenEda]] ([[User talk:JenEda|talk]]) 06:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)JenEda
-------------
-------------
{{minnow}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
{{minnow}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Revision as of 06:37, 31 May 2012

There is no Cabal

User talk:Hu12/talkheader


Welcome

Welcome to the talk page . --Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re External links added by User Pandionaus. The user has been advised about external links on 20 April 2010 on his talk page. I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asside from spam, user clearly has a conflict of interest "The primary aim of my website... "[1], and appears to be added for promotional purposes and sell his bird images (birdway.com.au/printpurchases.htm).
Accounts
Pandionaus (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)
Wikipedia is not a vehicle to sell images. I've removed them.--Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Spam in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spam for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for your opinion on this set of contributions. The user was advised about EL on 3 July 2011. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a report here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#American_Bird_Conservancy_COI_spam
Seems there is a long term pattern, and previous blocks related to this organization. as for the newest account (Amyatabc), Ive blocked per:
--Hu12 (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12: I noted your deletion of the American Bird Conservancy external link from the Environmental impact of wind power article and left a comment for you on its discussion page. As mentioned there, I see no WP:COI in an ornithologist providing a link to a policy page related to avoiding bird strikes by wind turbines. The website itself is an official site for a non-profit group which deals with environmental matters related to birds. This is not spam or opinion pushing, and even a series of links in related bird articles wouldn't constitute a disruption to our project, IMHO. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
replied--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBL removal

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is vbs.tv. Thank you. —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Allan Coe and Johnny Rebel edits by various IPs

I'm hoping you can possibly help with an issue I brought up at User talk:Calmer Waters#David Allan Coe and Johnny Rebel. An anonymous editor I believe is intentionally trying to get the official web site of David Allan Coe ([http ://www.officialdavidallancoe.com http ://www.officialdavidallancoe.com]) blacklisted in order to substitute a fan site [http ://www.davidallencoe.com http ://www.davidallencoe.com]. See this edit. You had warned this IP User_talk:72.171.0.139#Additions of http:.//.officialdavidallancoe.com for the adding the link when above the editor is removing the link. Frankly I'm not sure the editor is quite balanced as the strategy appears to be to add the official link to Johnny Rebel to get it blacklisted while removing it from David Allan Coe and substituting the fan site. Thanks, GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Library Sound Archive revert

Hi, today you reverted links to British Library audio recordings from sound archives of Plath, Browning, Rossetti and others. I was curious as to your motive. They are not "advertising or inappropriate external links" and seem strong and valuable to add, I think the product of the on-going GLAM/British Library collaboration which is working to offer more WP links to archive. A group is regularly meeting with the Library to open up public access. I understand that Kadams Adams' adding so many may have set alarm bells going, but I think that closer investigation of the links themselves would show their worth. Thanks Span (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedas spam filter caught Special:Contributions/Kadams87 mass spamming the project, I reverted per Wikipedia:SPAM#External_link_spamming and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. It doesn't matter if they might "show their worth" (etc.) it doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. see WP:NOT and WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Go ahead and add that one back to Robert Browning. thanks;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what 'spam' is in this context, given that Wikipedia has set up a project with the British Library to be able to link their sound files to our articles. Your sense of 'Spam' here seems to mean adding by rote or adding to too many articles, rather than any reflection on content. WP:SPAM says spam is "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website". I don't believe this is the case in this situation. Unusually, I believe that in this case all the links connect to rare sound archive material that is not available elsewhere. The British Library has one of the world's most extensive literary, publicly funded collections of historical document. Span (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links.. This is the essense of spamming. Wikipedia is Not a repository of Links. WP:NOT is a community agreed upon standard that all wikipedian should follow, particularly WP:SPA accounts demonstrate eggregiously, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the British Library in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption (Persistent spamming)--Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CRARG

Thanks for taking care of this [http: //www.crarg.org/ one linkspam] reinserted by socks in so many articles at once. I was wondering if the blacklisting of the actual link would be equally appropriate, but you probably know better how to deal with this sort of thing. — LMK3 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WikiProject Spam report, continued multiple account spamming, despite warnings; So Per;
This site has been blocked--Hu12 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

d-addicts.com

Hi Hu12. My actual intention is to request Wikipedia to remove all existing d-addicts.com links from its pages and include d-addicts.com in the Wikipedia spam blacklist. I just realized I might have made an error. I was supposed to state my request within the "Proposed additions" section instead of the "Proposed removals" section at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, am I right? --Jofien (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12. I've verified using my own sandbox that d-addicts.com was already blacklisted. I've deleted my request on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist page to avoid any further misunderstanding. Please delete you reply as well. Very sorry for any inconvenience caused. As I've mentioned, d-addicts.com is involved in copyright infringement of many Asian dramas. May I know whether the Wikipedia server can be configured to delete or block all the existing, old d-addicts.com links indicated on this page? --Jofien (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is black listed @ meta. Ive readded your request and closed it for the "record". no worries. All current links that reside on the server will not effect editing or saving a page, however it does block the addition of new links, or the re-addition of of links that get removed. thanks for your time in this matter....--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia is still "contributing" to copyright infringement. For example, this Wiki page links to the d-addicts page (wiki.d-addicts.com/Atsu_Hime) which in turn links to the forum (www.d-addicts.com/forum) that encourages the illegal download of many dramas. Since d-addicts is already blacklisted, can all the current links found through this search be deleted manually by anyone, if not automatically by the Bots? Thanks. --Jofien (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12. I'm still waiting for your advice. I would like Wikipedia to dissociate itself totally from the domain d-addicts.com. May I repeat: Since d-addicts is already blacklisted, can all the current links found through this search be deleted manually by anyone, if not automatically by the Bots? Thanks. --Jofien (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UGRB

Here's another one of those. Please take a look at a linkspam involving speedily deteted Ukrainian Genealogical Research Bureau and the repeated addition of external link to that (clearly commercial) website by a non-autoconfirmed account: Markig1 (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance. —LMK3 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made a report here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Ukrainian_Genealogical_Research_Bureau. Looks as if there was some cross language spamming also. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The No Spam Barnstar
Thank you so much for reverting all that nonsense from Tony4b! Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debatepedia

It seems like in 2007 there were questions about the quality of the Debatepedia website, that you were involved in. Here is a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#wiki.idebate.org

I think the spam filter should be removed from it.

This is what the website says about itself:

Debatepedia is the Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues. A project of the 501c3 non-profit International Debate Education Association (IDEA), Debatepedia utilizes the same wiki technology powering Wikipedia to centralize arguments and quotes found in editorials, op-eds, political statements, and books into comprehensive pro/con articles. This helps citizens and decision-makers better deliberate on the world's most important questions. Debatepedia is endorsed by the National Forensic League.

This is my explanation of why I like the website:

This link uses the wikipedia model to allow others to list pros and cons of different ideas. Any web-page has a bias. However in the encyclopedia world we are supposed to link to unbiased sources of information. I believe the best way to do this is to link to news articles and websites that try to be unbiased. The above link specifically tries to put reasons to agree and disagree on the same page in separate columns. If you believe in Wikipedia, if you believe in the power of crowds, if you believe in seeing both sides of an issue, I believe the above external link will allow internet viewers see gain access to more information.

I would love to hear what you think. myclob (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, asside from the past abuse, this site is a wiki. Being so, would make it a Link normally to be avoided and would fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. I don't think the site meets any of our inclusion guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12, please refer to the "d-addicts.com" section earlier. --Jofien (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 other admins have already deleted the links. --Jofien (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External inks an agents website

User:Catrina Caldwell (apparently a new user) has edited two pages so far and on both she added an external link to an agents website. Someone with the same name is mentioned on the website at this page. Thus it seems likely to me that the new user might have a COI and I think that it would be worth making enquiries. Snowman (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovebirds forum website

See one example here of a series of edits adding external links to a forum. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if the account GideonSA, is an administrator (Gideon) othe forum. --Hu12 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steinathkw

Hey Hu12, I remember you from my RfA many years ago! Would you consider an unblock of this account? While their behavior needs ongoing scrutiny, they have not yet made any spammy edits since their request to change their user name was approved. Though they are busy adding external links to articles, the material is often useful, and is one of the rare sources of information for some really obscure articles. My impression is they are a government-supported organization in Germany. They are still editing the German Wikipedia as de:User:Haus der Kulturen der Welt. (Now I see that you've left a comment there). Shouldn't Steinathkw at least be given a chance to see if they will follow our policies, after the change of name? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend. Asside from a spam link adding account (over multiple wiki's) my concern was raised as she went back to using Special:Contributions/Haus_der_Kulturen_der_Welt after the name change on the 1st. Both accounts, based on their edit history, exist for the sole or primary purpose of adding links in apparent violation of both Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. know that Steinathkw (talk · contribs) is Eva Stein (Stein at hkw), the internet Public Relations and Communications editor at Haus der Kulturen der Welt [2]. If you would like to unblock the Steinathkw account in hopes her behavior changes, I'll have no objection of you doing so. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration

We find that our links for the website www.galatta.com placed in Reference/Links section in any articles are removed as we were involved in adding links with Adsense to Wikipedia in the year 2008. You can find the details from Adsense related marketing Spamming We weren't aware of SPAM until we noticed the page referred above and understood the nature of abuse. We had been waiting for almost 3 years to resolve this and ensure that we come out of it. We are interested in getting back to Wikipedia with our quality contributions. I understand that we messed up so bad but please give us a chance to get back and prove ourselves. The pages does impact a lot on our business. Hope you would reconsider our request. Dotcominfoway (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly both the nature and extent of the abuse is beyond excessive. Clearly your intent upon return is to continue the promotion of your links which, if allowed, would be in apparent violation of Wikipedias Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Additionaly;
We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners'/representatives requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your sites. Thank you for your understanding.--Hu12 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RCPI Heritage Centre edits

I think your reversal of the above edits as spam/CoI is a tad harsh. I've been keeping an eye on them (I've created or contributed to the affected articles) and IMO they are relatively harmless - after all it's only a heritage centre, not some profiteering enterprise. And while edits to College-related articles could be considered CoI, edits to physicians' bios could hardly be. I'd like to address this on the editor's talk page, but I'd like to hear your opinion on this first. Hohenloh + 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Rachelelizabethe (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC) User talk:Rachelelizabethe From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [edit]http://.ombudsman-services.org[reply]

Accounts Ombudsman Services (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Services Edit filter search · Google) Rachelelizabethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google) Rachel Chorley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Chorley Edit filter search · Google)

The page Ombudsman Services has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be blatant advertising which only promotes something, and which is unlikely to be suitable for an article (or at best would need a fundamental rewrite). Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, whether a company, product, group, service, person, religious or political belief, or anything else. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.--Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi I work for a not for profit company ombudsman services. The page is not intended to advertise, however we provide a free service that there is a statutory requirement for ombudsman in energy and comms and we are the organisation appopinted by government to do this. We give out free advice to people in dispute, for example problems with their gas and electricity bills , or vulnerable people who may of had their phone line disconnected or have no heating etc.

Your edits are in apparent violation of Wikipedias Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Additionaly;
Accounts
Ombudsman Services (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)
Rachelelizabethe (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)
Rachel Chorley (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)(16:20, 23 November 2011 Ombudsman Services (talk | contribs | block) created new account User:Rachel Chorley ‎ (new account) )
It is quite evident that your creation of multiple accounts are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Ombudsman Service Limited . Please do not create articles or continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address and accounts being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote Ombudsman Service Limited right? --Hu12 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boleon and KernSafe advertisements

Sorry to bother you but I thought you should know that Boleon has been hitting the iSCSI page again, this time making unexplained reverts of explained changes. After examining his recent changes, I asked him nicely (on his Talk page) to stop; only time will tell if that will work. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an Spam / advertising-only account and considering the recent vandalism the next step will be a block, per;
See WikiProject Spam report. Thanks for catching this. cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StarWind Software page

Hu12,

see, I can just tell the same I've told to Vrenator - the whole idea to keep StarWind Software page is to provide backlinks FROM wikipedia, from already existing referenced to StarWind software products. Keeping article itself makes absolutely no good as a spam source as it's useful only to people who are already familiar with the company. Vrenator did remove "advertisment" tag and we're working on providing links from external sources. Please allow us keep the page. And don't call spammers - we're not :(

Thank you!

AK47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.8.10 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly spam;
Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Any further spamming may result in your site, account and/or your IP address and accounts being blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, page is completely re-written. Now it has only references to external sources (including hardcopy ones) and some basic information about the company and it's HQs location. Could you please check our page again to say is it OK or not. And BTW, why our content is a SPAM and DataCore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataCore_Software) is not? Thank you for your help! 213.238.8.10 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your comments on the Starwind Software AfD page and as you seem to have an aversion to people exploiting Wikipedia for promotion and advertising I was wondering if you could take a look at Microsoft SQL Server Compare Tools. This article is nothing but a list of external links for people trying to promote their products. If these links were put on most articles they would be immediately reverted as spam. I have suggested changing the links to references and removing anything with no reference at all. I've put in a request for comment but the only response I've had is from an IP user who has a link for his product on it. There are a lot of these articles, I've started cleaning up Comparison of database tools which I think looks better. I would really appreciate any comments you may have on this - I'm so tempted to AfD it. Vrenator talk 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vrenator. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. This seems to be the case with Microsoft SQL Server Compare Tools, which is a WP:SPAMHOLE and seriously conflicts with WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is simply not a place for indiscriminate list or WP:LINKFARMS. Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" means articles that consist of a list of links to "Notable" articles. Lists are Wikipedia articles; so are subject to Wikipedia's content policies. It doesnt have enough "notable article links" to warrent a stand alone list..probably needs to be deleted or redirected to Microsoft SQL Server. The Comparison of database tools, however, appears to have enough notable articles to be a list, however all the non-article entries should be removed as they add nothing to this encyclopedia. thats my thoughts..--Hu12 (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think I will nominate it for deletion as I can't really see that there would be much left if the spam is removed. Nothing is sourced properly . At least it will provoke a discussion.Vrenator talk 13:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest to make this page a "proxy" - list of short references to the products and / or companies already listed in Wiki. It really helps to have software titles to be put face-to-face in one place. Just my $0.02 :) APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Now redirects to Microsoft SQL Server --GraemeL (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeL, its not stalking when your always welcome on any of my pages at any time. ;) Love the fact theres actualy a {{TPS}} template. Cheers --Hu12 (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The No Spam Barnstar
It's better to be overdressed than underdressed. Thank you for kiling spam. Even if you go sometimes too far... APS (Full Auto) (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other remedies

When an article you think is just a lot of foolish puffery survives AfD over your own !vote to delete, one option is to fix the article. They wanted an article, okay, they got it. Make it brutally verifiable. Cite the heck out of each and every edit, eliminate the puffery and reduce the article to the verifiable facts. You'll be helping make a better encyclopedia and, if you're like me, you may also get another kind of satisfaction. C.f., [3] and [4] and the discussion on the article talk page. Msnicki (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay...

Sorry to take so long to respond to your message; I've been away. My wife required unplanned spinal surgery last week and my hands have been full. Much as I love working on WP, she is a higher interrupt priority. I've got to get some sleep now but will try my best to answer tomorrow. Take care--and Happy Christmas! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 05:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. Prayers to both of you for a fast recovery! May your Solsitce, Festivus and Christmas be full with loved ones and blessed with fond memories. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your anti-spam work, but...

I don't think it's a good idea to reproduce the URL of a spamlink in your messages to the spammers; I suspect it might somehow pump up their search engine results, and besides it's unwarranted recognition. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its for tracking. I always add a . after the "http://", so the links are null and will always 404..;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that; but I just feel like we ought to keep the text string of any spamlink out of the project as much as possible, except on pages devoted specifically to spammer-catching where it will appear to their shame. YMMV, of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its for tracking. Cant tell you how many various sock's and IP's have, and are being tracked because of multiple editors tagging spammers talk pages. Its been a simple but invaluable tracking method for project spam and has been effective, at least for me, the last 5 years. however, I do see your point Orangemike. --Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Hu12,

You are receiving this message because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout without specifying a preference between a full blackout or soft blackout. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI.   — C M B J   00:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

 Done, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Hu12, I added an external link to a site that you removed (note: I am affiliated with the site). I believe it is of real value to RLS patients and does not try to sell anything, just a patient participation survey to increase the overall knowledge of RLS and other conditions. Patients can answer questions about RLS, discuss the questions, and even create new questions of their own to explore the topic. I think this link should be added to the External Links section: *[https ://www.traitwise.com/?tags=rls Restless Legs Syndrome on Traitwise.com]. I would like your thoughts. Thank you. Mrs102561 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

parrotfacts.net

One or more IP users appear to be keen to add external links to http: //parrotfacts.net. See these edits 1 and 2 as examples. What do you think about this? Snowman (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an individual adding multiple related (adsense)domains.--Hu12 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


article about Rosa Barba

Hi Hu12, I am new to wikipedia, and I admit that I don't quite figured out how it works with the editing of articles. Since I definately know that wikipedia loves to have more people involved to edit, I tried to edit an article about the german artist Rosa Barba, who I know very good. Yesterday I did this without havin an account, like with IP-adresses, but today I found that it was reverted, and it looks that it was reverted by you. Could you tell me what's wrong with this article, like did you find any false information there, or what was the reason you reverted it? I think all information in my article is right. I started an account now "midnighthours" and put it again back to what I wrote, and I would be very happy to get some information or response from you. thank you, greetings from midnighthours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnighthours (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you need to look at WP:COI. Second article is Unsourced (WP:BLP), and reads like an essay (WP:NOTESSAY) and appears more promotional in nature than encyclopedic. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a directory of her work. Fact is I seriously doubt she is notable enough to pass the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. Lots of problems with the article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well, if you think that what's now there is better, I just quote this: "Rosa Barba works in a viriety in a variety of media and formats...". And if you think she is not notable enough for a more comprehensive article, then I think you have just not much insights about her work and it's meaning in contemporary visual art, especially in europe. Looks like my humble start in wikipedia is already coming to an end here, since it feels that wikipedia doesn't really welcomes and supports newcomers after all. So, bye bye wikipedia. At least: thanx for a response. MidnightHours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnighthours (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Hu12,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not refspam in this case

Hi. I know why you made this change. However, in this case, ref is not refspam, because it is to a legitimate record of an event that is memorialized there. In this case, the site acts as a third-party independent reference for this fact. I'll revert. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you want to investigate a big spammer and probably a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, see User:Tixienixie. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that the link is a press release, hosted on brilliantlectures.org, sponsored by "THE BRILLIANT LECTURE SERIES" and added into the article by BrilliantLectureSeries (talk · contribs)... I'd say it is aything but an independant third-party source...in addition to failing as a WP:RS. Sorry. I'll look into User:Tixienixie --Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted per WP:RS Please be aware of WP:BLP. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please block a spammer

Hello. For a long time I'm monitoring a specific spammer through Filter 441. The three users reported here are his latest socks. These are not false positives, I assure you. Can you block them. Sole Soul (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reports;
Lots in that filter... created this on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board --Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a few edits adding external links to surajyam.org; see this edit. I do not know how widespread these additions are. It looks like someone with a similar username had edited this page on the external website. Snowman (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blocked the account, its an "Advert" only..--Hu12 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Fed Up, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfin reef squid

If the issue was simply the url pointing to a website you consider non-reliable, you would have noticed immediately that the link was pointing to the wrong article. Instead of removing entire swathes of text based on that, please find the source in the future. The information was important and can easily be attested elsewhere if you just looked. I have corrected the link.

That said what exactly is non WP:RS with the link anyway?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. You removed [http ://www.ihavenet.com/Environment-Overfishing-Pollution-Could-Change-Seafood-Diets.html this source] and [http ://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/science-in-pics-breeding-bigfin-reef-squid-59504.html this source]. The former is an interview of several scientists, the latter is by a nature photographer. Both of their content can be verified by academic papers also used in Bigfin reef squid. So why exactly again are they unreliable? Because they're not the New York Times or something? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ihavenet.com Scraper site Article is from the New Scientist and improperly attributed and possibly publishing content in violation of Copyrights. Proper attribution should contain; (New Scientist | March 7, 2009 | Williams, Caroline | Copyright 2002 New Scientist). However, it does appears the New Scientist article is behind a paywall. Anyway, its a part of a large scale spam campaign, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Jan_1#Adsense_0659522543150107_Related. its nothing more than a news aggrigator site, which perhaps in this case it would be preferable to link to a reliable, properly attributed article over a paywall. Although plenty of other, properly attributed(reliability) copies exist.--Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means correct it, don't remove it. I have nothing against removing scraper/spam sites, but please do not remove perfectly good information when doing so. It's harder to rebuild the lost information than it is to find a source. Even a {{Citation needed}} is preferable. I have corrected the attribution. Thanks.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the citation. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I prefer first names first (convention used in other sources in the same article) and the |author= field rather than unwieldy |first= |last= params.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12! I've been responding to the Feedback Dashboard comments from new users that past few days. This morning a comment was placed by Laureanoralon expressing disappointment over her links being removed and given a spam warning. I checked some of the edits ([5], [6], [7]..) and they seem to be valid to me per WP:ELYES. This is not a complaint, it's more for my own learning (and to help this user), but wouldn't the interview pages be appropriate as external links to those articles? I notice WP:ELYES specifically mentions interview transcripts as appropriate. Thanks for any insight you can give me! Wikipelli Talk 12:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Yunshui has given me a big part of the answer here. . I didn't catch the COI angle. Still, I think there's a case to be made for including. Hopefully Laureanoralon will read and take Yunshui's advice. Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 12:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this users conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia under Laureanoralon and IP 201.219.84.73, in order to promote Articles written by Laureano Ralon which is in clear violation of our SPAM Guideline. The External Links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states explicitly; "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." and is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Additionaly Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising and by spamming their own article violates one Wikipedia's main pillars, which is neutrality (NPOV). Lastly, since this user has no other contributions other than spamming links to their own articles for two days straight, the policy Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption could also be applied here;
There's a multitude of issues involved in this case. Thanks for dropping me a note--Hu12 (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! I appreciate it!  :) Wikipelli Talk 13:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Bulgaria

Hello, please take a look at my objection against the blacklisting of "Images from Bulgaria". →Spiritia 20:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied--Hu12 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Levinson

Hu, I have reverted (again) your deletion of the interview with Paul Levinson. It strikes me as a legitimate interview explicating his ideas and life - perfect for a BLP. If you disagree, may I suggest that you and I discuss on the Levinson talk page. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarstone

Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MooMinder and BurrenSteel

I am surprised to see that your verdict on MooMinder and BurrenSteel as spam-sites is stale.([8]) The article is semi-protected to prevent further spamming, so I plein don't understand your decision. Can you explain that? Night of the Big Wind talk 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Night of the Big Wind. It Appears page protection prevented further incidents on the article Tubber, Ireland and there have been no other additions of these urls elsewhere on the project the past 5 months. Would appear this case has become stale and further administrative actions such as blacklisting, would be unnecessary.--Hu12 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, clear. Thanks for the explanation. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting it. If future incidents occur, please let me know and we'll have another look at it. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam talk deletion

A discussion about a spam/unreliable source was completely deleted by an involved editor [9]. Can it be restored by another editor like me, or does it require bureaucrat/admin work? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask the same question. Shouldn't it be archived so that it can be found using the search tool?--Dodo bird (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation?

you had voiced concern

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#adding_links_to_philipkdickfans_site and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.philipkdickfans.com

with the appearance of

is there sufficient cause to open a sockpuppet investigation? -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and its been confirmed they are the same. Also See WikiProject Spam report--Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A respected user here,

Hello,

I see my name here[10], Its wrong because I used Jamejam newspaper link (jamejamonline.ir), as a source in a Wikinews article probably. so please correct it, plus I have at least more that 1000 edits in just on wiki(fa.wikipedia.org) without a single mistake, AND I am a roll backer and reviewer in fa.wikinews.org, please correct this mistake if you can solve it, Thank you in advance, Regards KhabarNegar (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be concerned about. When you made this edit, it logged that action. --Hu12 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, so its wrong, because this edit, is a normal news and that links are sources of that news and both are well-known famous newspaper link(which I am not their employee!), so this bot is doing wrong by considering that link as Spam. I have made lots of news in Wikinews and that edit is just one of them, by considering all above please do me a favor, Please remove my name from that list, (because that's wrong), or may you please help me to correct this bot so not to recognize normal users as spammers again.KhabarNegar (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All edits are logged on Wikipedia (ie [11]), this one happens to be logging additions of the jamejamonline.ir URL and logging the ("Diff's"). Anywhere jamejamonline.ir is inserted it loggs the "diff" of that action. I'll strike your name, however its realy no big deal.--Hu12 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 205.152.158.201

Hi. Concerning your recent block of 205.152.158.201, I do not think adding links from Gene Wiki articles to the [http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ United States National Center for Biotechnology Information GeneReviews] is spam. These are highly relevant and authoritative links that associate mutations in human genes with diseases. I do wish the editor would create an account and be more interactive. For example, it might be a better idea to include these links in the {{GNF_Protein_box}} templates and I would like to start a discussion with this editor on this proposal. But I do note that the editor did respond to my request to add links after the references section. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note this discussion and particularly the comments of the Wikipedia Administrator TimVickers. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Boghog. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. Adding over 1,300 links to the same site, is WP:LINKSPAM. The discusion took place in 2010, and it appears there has no attempt by this IP to discuss or coordinate with any wiki-project to integrate these links into a legitimate template or some other collaborative effort. This is has continued for the last 3+ years, in clear violation of WP:NOTLINKFARM. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam warnings

You may want to revisit some of your "spam" warnings (the set you posted on User Talk:Monish.tolaney and others). User:Jaideep.pant and the IP were adding links to the parent companies of some sites--that's wrong, per WP:ELOFFICIAL, but not spam. Monish.tolaney was spamming, because he was adding links to a site that sells magazines. MikeDogma appears to be a complete mistake, because that editor hasn't edited since being blocked in 2009. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been reverting links to theodorerooseveltcenter.org placed by Krystal M Thomas. I wonder what you think is wrong with the links? They seem to me to be relevant links to a useful resource. I have no doubt that you are right in seeing Krystal M Thomas as being involved, so that there is the potential for a conflict of interest, but that is not in itself a reason for removing the links. If there is some other reason that I haven't seen, I would be grateful if you could let me know what it is, and I have no doubt it would also help Krystal M Thomas to know what the problem with her editing is, so that she can avoid making the same mistake again. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individual adding the links. The most prominent problem is that Krystal M Thomas (talk · contribs) is the "Digital Library Coordinator" for the website theodorerooseveltcenter.org. Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked., which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines and a direct violation of Neutral point of view, one of The five pillars of Wikipedia. Clearly adding a bunch of external links to an articles for the purpose of promoting a website is not allowed, and is considered Link spamming. Here are some relevant guidelines and policies:
Hopefully these are helpful. Thanks James.--Hu12 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification. I accept your point. However, saying that the editor in question should not have put the links there is not the same as saying that they should be removed, just as conflict of interest of an author is not adequate reason for deletion of an article. It is up to us to make an intelligent assessment of whether the links are suitable, and remove them only if they aren't, no matter who put them there (except in the case of edits by a banned user, which is the one case where policy says we can revert no matter what the merits of the edits). JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wholey agree. A reasonable assessment, in this case, shows that repeated mass additions to the same URL landing page over multiple articles is not a suitable contribution and as a result, were removed because they were not added in order to verifying article content. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting in India

Hey Hu12,

The wiki article on Indian Podcasts is highly out of date. In fact most of the links don't resolve any more.

I had added a new podcast (the one I run) to the page and wanted to clean up the page in later edits. I obviously did something wrong. Let me know what I did wrong there. But the one I added is a genuine Indian Podcast.

Other things I think need to change in the article: - A line about Indicast states that it is the "most consistent and widespread" podcast network. While it is probably true, it is superlative with no proper metric to back it. - There are many more podcasts that are active today in India that have no mention on the page - New trends like comedy podcasts have also taken seed in India which should be mentioned in the article because it makes it seem like we only podcast about sports, politics and languages

Since I work on an Indian Podcast, I have context and perspective on the article and I would like us Indian podcasters to be represented better :)

Let me know what you thought was wrong with the first edit and I'll correct that in future edits. thanks.

Rohjose (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent.... Additionally, your site is a podcast which is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Query

Hello Hu12, I see that you have removed much of the content from this article: James Robison (author). I am relatively new to this and appreciate any advice. Can you please help me understand how those sections I added to the article which were removed need editing? I thought they were reliable and useful sources. (BTW, I created the article without input from the author himself, he is an author whose work I greatly admire, but who lacked a Wiki article, which I saw as a travesty given his accomplishments. He just won another Pushcart Prize this year, which is a big deal in Literary circles.) I tried to base my formatting and sourcing as much as possible on articles which were either "Featured" like J. K. Rowling, or "Good articles" like Clara Ng and Julia Alvarez. Those articles have bibliographical sections linking to outside sources in the same way as the Robison article. Is there another way to include these removed sections? Perhaps by placing outside links in the References sections? Many thanks, --Kfitz00 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included a comment in the edit summary, explaining the edit. While your intentions are clearly well meaning, your running into the problem of WP:LINKFARM. Most defiantly mention the awards and the existing section looks good, however try using Inline citations to verify.--Hu12 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Sites

Hi Hu12, I just wanted a slight clarification on adding links. I added a few links for certain music artists mixtapes, these were linked to the corresponding mixtape where the reader could listen or download that specific free mixtape. This link didnt currently exist on wikipedia. You removed these links that i put up as you said they were spamming but i disagree as the links are directly specific to the mixtape(s) that was listed on wikipedia.

So just so i'm sure if an artist has a free mixtape available that has been listed on wikipedia, and there are no links from wikipedia to that mixtape, are you not allowed to provide that link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consept1 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this has been explained to you before.
Accounts
Consept1 (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)
86.178.146.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.180.190.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.182.174.174 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.177.102.194 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.176.42.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.176.93.143 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Wikipedia is Not a repository of Links. Based on your edit history, you appear to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the Download A Mixtape in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption (Persistent spamming). Additionally, your site is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Adobe Flex charts editing

Why spam?? People might be curios why certain frameworks are not included, and I gave the explanations in those sections you removed. Also the prices... if the article compares some products and gives the prices - the most logical question reader might have is "are those prices are still actual?" Thebit.hao (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such promotional content, pricing and advertisements do not belong here. see WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOPRICES --Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist

Hello :) I noticed that you're primarily involved at the Spam whitelist noticeboard, could you please review my request for aceshowbiz.com to be unblocked? Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of that URL for you. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much :D. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Logan

Hi. Can you explain, please, why you are deleting what appears to be a perfectly reasonable external link from this article, without explanation in an edit summary? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should help explain Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate your taking the time. Please consider my reversion of your removal as a de facto posting of the link by myself. Since I have no connection with Figure/Ground, which I had never heard of before, there's no COI problem, and the interview the link leads to is otherwise compliant with WP:EL. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed --Hu12 (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HU12: a quick note to advise that the Iris Chang Papers external link deleted was not a duplicate of the link above it, although they were identically worded. The two collections were entirely different, one by Chang in 1995 and the other posthumously, 2004-2011. The external link has been reinstated and clarifications have been made to the two collections listed. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Harry. cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raid of the Rainbow Lounge

Could you please explain why you keep removing the information regarding "Raid of the Rainbow Lounge" (the documentary) from the Rainbow Lounge Raid page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Lounge_raid? --Brian (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you added it 2 weeks before its actual March 15 premiere. It was added prior to that by an account clearly created to promote the video. Wikipedia is not an vehicle for promoting video's. Scheduled or expected events should only be included if the event is notable and has already taken place. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be "Raid of the Rainbow Lounge" related only... You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just promote this video, right? --Hu12 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different IPs reverting your edits on loft conversions

Hi, just spotted that an non registered IP has reverted your edits on the loft conversion page and put back the links to convertlofts.com and starlightlofts.com have returned and this very obviously a commercial website and the links offer no value. I would propose that the offending website is considered for blacklisting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.58.0 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 May 2012

Your edits have been reverted again. This time by a named user but I suspect it is the same person that has been spamming converlofts.com. There are no comments on the edit or reason given for undoing your edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.254.90 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 15 May 2012

I believe the links to convertlofts.com add much value to the wikipedia page expanding on areas, dormer and mansard conversions as well other areas of loft conversions. Having read the website it is aparent that it is not a commercial site but more so a site to prodive resource on all aspects of loft conversions - this emphisied on the about us page of the site. 87.84.104.51 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts
Based on your edit history, you appear to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the ConvertLofts.com in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption (Persistent spamming). Additionally, "ConvertLofts.com' is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote ConvertLofts.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best China Travel spam on Wikipedia

I hate to use the back channels, but this one cannot wait the usual X months for blacklisting: See WikiProject Spam report and [12] (Ctrl+F for 14.214. and 27.36., link might go stale in a couple of days time). Thanks in advance. MER-C 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all done--Hu12 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this. MER-C 10:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Capital

Hi, yesterday you made this edit at the Caesarstone article, removing a reference to Renaissance Capital that was there for verification purposes regarding information relating to Caesarstone's March IPO on the Nasdaq. Renaissance is often cited by the Naz's own online news reports, as well as by Reuters and other prominent outlets. The edit summary said "WP:RS adsense spam," but I'm uncertain as to what that means and how the reference qualifies as spam when it's there for the purpose of WP:V. I'll thank you to take a few moments to share the reasoning behind that edit with me, especially as my tendency is to revert it as a misidentification as spam of something that's intended as an innocent citation.—Biosketch (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I see you've nominated Renaissance Capital (US company) for deletion. It could be the article itself in its current form is bogus for reasons of COI and promotion, but I have to disagree strongly that Renaissance fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:CORP. If that's the motivation underlying the removal of all the Renaissance links and classifying them as spam, then it would have been wiser to address the issue at a venue where community input could be encouraged and consensus reached before removing all the links – unless that was already tried and consensus was established. I'll continue this at the AfD page, but at least specifically regarding Caesarstone I ask that you reconsider the link's removal in light of my comment above.—Biosketch (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renaissance Capital is a non notable investing company whom was cought mass Refrerence spamming from IP's registered with Renaissance Capital Corp. I've reworded the section in the Caesarstone article and added a real news source. --Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The No Spam Barnstar
Just a reminder that people really do appreciate the many hours of work you spend spam fighting. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much!--Hu12 (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in de:WP: songlexikon.de

Your edits last night in de-WP weren't useful at all and caused a bunch of reverts. songlexikon.de is an official project of the University of Freiburg and most of the links pass our standards for weblinks. Next time it would be helpful to start a request on admin requests before doing such crosswiki actions. Thanks, Siech•Fred Home 06:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It doesn't matter--being University of Freiburg related, it doesn't confer a license to Mass cross-Project spam even when it's true. see (de:Silberundgold, en:Silberundgold, fr:Silberundgold). Often Wikipedia is spammed by these institutions in attempts to both legitimize "official projects" and increase their 'project' exposure in hopes for more/new funding and donations to the institution. Unfortunately, a closer look reveals its nothing more that an low value, Wikipedia knock-off "Song Encyclopedia" which does not provide a unique resource. --Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer surprises me. Classification as spam in en or fr necessarily doesn't mean, that it is spam in de too. The ressource meets the criterias for weblinks in de-WP and the allegation of being just another wiki clone seems outrageous to me. If you could read and understand the german text provided by the links you will see, that the articles in "Encyclopaedia of Songs" are of a musicological kind. And furthermore we've discussed the links in de-WP and found a consensus together with user:Silberundgold days before your did your reverts. I've seen that you're an active spam fighter, that's very important, indeed. But all that I beg you for is that you should be more careful in reverting link spam in other than your home wiki and ask before you act. We have a very active vandal fighting unit in de, there is no need for cross wiki actions without any comment. Thanks, Siech•Fred Home 06:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia has its own content. Are you god?

I work hours writing content on wikipedia, i leave a link, you delete link? why don't you delete my writing too. does this link is harmfull to user? Or give user a better experience. cnlikebo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.220.2.146 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Your hours of contributions consist entirely of exploiting Wikipedia promoting your site (chinesezodiac.org Registrant Name:Li Kebo) and identify yourself as " likebo " and only exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting chinesezodiac.org in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines. In addition to your persistant , WP:REFSPAMming, you have used edit summaries for personal attacks, and harassment, which are never signs of good faith. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China–North Korea relations

Hello Hu12. I have a question on your edit in People's Republic of China–North Korea relations: May I ask you why this sentence has been reverted? I didn't contribute the contents, but just curious since it looks relevant. (or maybe not?) Thanks, --- PBJT (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reverted because of WP:COI MASS Multi article Spamming by Special:Contributions/205.201.242.126 (IP close to IP of server of wilsoncenter.org). cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response, Hu12! I respect your decision, and was just curious since the sentence itself doesn't look like a problem. By the way, could this content be included in the article, maybe in the military aid section? I was also interested in that declassified diplomatic cable, and thought that those documents are worth mentioning somewhere in the Wikipedia. (maybe not in the PRC-NK relations.) Best, --- PBJT (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it will bennifit the article, then by all means re-include it in a neutral encyclopedic way. My reversion was about the behavior (WP:SPAM & WP:COI), not so much the content of the link. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a reason for removing this link? Please reply here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, This and this should help explain it. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment on the general case, but the particular link you removed is to a very valuable archive that, as far as I know, is not available elsewhere. Part of the objection seems to be that someone connected with the website is inserting the links. I have examined the contents reached by the link and can determine that the content is quite informative and useful with respect to history of the subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve Mariotti article

Hello again! In my haste, I forgot the top-of-article templates, which you added. Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 20:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this one;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents

Hi there HU, VASCO from Portugal here,

about this message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NFBDB), just to notify you that, two weeks later, User:NFBDB has resumed his insertion of the "bad" external link (only once, in Nélson Marcos, i have reverted him).

Could it be he was waiting for the tide to settle to resume or is it just a coincidence. Anyway, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting it, Vasco. He only added that one, so he may be testing the waters. thanks again--Hu12 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==Newcomer Does Not Deserve Block For Ignorance -- It is not my intent to spam or allude to anything but to try and understand the appropriate method for articles to be submitted for the Seazoria Discovery. The discoverer is not computer savvy enough to understand the wikipedia methods. I will not be publishing the pages, he will be doing the articles but for him to do them I need to understand the process to show him how. I am sorry you find it necessary to belittle someone that is new to this forum and trying to self educate by asking questions. The Seazoria pages are not self promoting,or for the primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. This is a historical discovery that has actual scientific facts and data surrounding this discovery and worthy of being in an encyclopedia environment. I guess maybe I posted to the wrong board to ask "newbie" type questions. My apologies.. Where should I have started? Many of you have been doing the admin duties and write-ups for a long time, I am merely trying to understand the process so that I may assist another in posting the article in the correct place with the correct citations. You mention adding the url to the Xlinkbot, what is that?? The way it is worded sounds to me that you are already planning to block it. Which in turn would prevent the real accurate information from being shared with the world about this historical discovery, or any articles pertaining to this discovery. Is my assumption correct? The Content is verifiable, reliable and not being submitted by me. So Why Xlinkbot it? JenEda (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)JenEda[reply]

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&oldid=495253014"