This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of April 2008. Exchanges spilling over from late March or into early May may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form.

Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.

Note: many of these were archived out of chronological order!

Talk:Asia (band).

I agree with the article protection, but if the talk page is protected, the editing dispute can't be solved. I'll keep an eye on the page to watch for any trolling, if you agree to unprotect it. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AndonicO, my concern is that our indefinitely blocked spammer just keeps trolling the talk page using a wide range of IPs. If you review the talk page history, you'll see what I mean. I'm not knowledgeable enough to figure out an appropriate range block to stop this without doing a lot of collateral damage. I'm also a new admin and still feeling my way on things like blocks and protection.

I'm traveling and don't have a lot of time to watch this. I trust your judgement and you have my blessing to undo my actions as you see fit -- feel free to unprotect the talk page if you think that's best.

I've got to go. Thanks for your help and advice on this one. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I thought that was full-protection... good move. I've tried a rangeblock on the user, hope I didn't screw up... · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that the person under debate is either a spammer or trolling, although s/he has acted unhelpfully and certainly does his/her case great harm. We should assume good faith, avoid inflammatory language ("spammer", "trolling") and continue to engage on the Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou, I think I have already engaged with this individual and with others on the talk page; I really just don't have anything more to add to the remarks I've already made.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} This person has demonstrated very bad faith and his/her behaviour matches our definition of spam. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your original semi-protection, but lengthened it by a few days. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. and AndonicO, Perhaps at this point a range block may be in order? I agree with the PP, but it appears this person isnt going away, and has been here since 11 August 2006 and was removed [6][7][8] several times (edit warrring) early on. moving his link "up" is never a sign of good faith. thoughts--Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not good to protect a page for very long time but then again it's not good to block a range of IPs for very long (in this case, several ranges of IPs). My own instinct is to extend semi-protection if needed as opposed to range-blocking assuming the disruption is limited to that one page. You've both got more experience as admins with this sort of thing, however, and I defer to your judgement. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The range block was brought up on Talk:Asia (band) by Blow of Light and in the SSP/Mondrago "Conclusions" by Jehochman, I would support this, as the disruption has continued since the suggestions. --Hu12 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolled my page and the BL page, I've given a week block for disruption to the IP range 4.238.124.0/24[9]--Hu12 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to interrupt this convo but since several of you are involved in the issues going on at the Asia page I thought I would interject a personal concern here where several eyes could pick up on it... rather than chase each of you down individually. It's nothing major... unless you're me... but on the Asia talk page there is a very lengthy list of IPs that are being linked to the ongoing spam push by the Asia Fan Club President. The problem is... and this is my concern... one of my IPs (a noble 156.34.X range) is listed among the many IPs that have been used by the AFC Pres. Trust me... the FC pres does not live in Eastern Canada :D . I was going to rm it myself but then I thought... "there just ain't enough edit summary space to properly clarify the reason for its removal". I didn't want to look like I was hiding something :D. Could one of you be so kind as to clear my trustworthy IP range from any connections with the AFC pres and all his woeful pain and suffering apparently caused by Wikipedia. I just want me number back eh? :D . Have a nice day! 'Libs' 156.34.226.160 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... much appreciated! 156.34.226.160 (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry libs didn't mean to list you, I'll remove it completely ;)--Hu12 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like block evading IP has now hit the MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February Ive blocked range 32.142.144.0/24[10]--Hu12 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Is_there_any_justice_left.3F_Is_this_a_fashi.3F

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Asia_.28band.29

More range blocks More range blocks [11][12][13][14] he's back at it.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes -- sorry I wasn't around to help with this. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASIA FAN CLUB (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)
found this, also spamming forums including email abuse.--Hu12 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

".... you think it's over... if you think I'm going anywhere think again, real good."--Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest ignoring him as long as he doesn't deface something in article-space. Just let him wear himself out ranting on that talk page. Heck, he can come to my page and rant if he wants. His behaviour has been totally out of line and in contravention of multiple policies and guidelines, starting with WP:CIVIL. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"2002 also saw the formation of the Official Armada Fan Club, to work in conjunction with the Armada website. This is the only Official Asia Fan Club in the bands history."[15]... The band's management company does not even recognise this guy's personal site as anything official. A note from the band's management posted on the Official Asia Fan Club site (originalasia.com), "We are aware of various sites selling photos and prints relating to Asia. Please note that unless these can demonstrate legitimate copyright approval, such product may be regarded as unauthorised and will probably be benefiting opportunist pirates, bootleggers and copyright cheats. Nothing less than theft - a criminal offence."[16] asiafanclub is not recognized by the band's management, nor does not appear on any of the official lists as authorized. --Hu12 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_self_proclaimed_.22Asia_Fan_Club_President.22--Hu12 (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea -- thanks for starting this. I left my two cents. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is you Troll collection..:)

Did you find all the species, or new one's still turn up..:) Igor Berger (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've been very busy off-line this past 6 weeks so I haven't had much time for collecting. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you ever need a good Troll, I am at your service..:) But I think we have done a really good job over the past few months getting rid of Spammers and vandals. Now slowly, if we can reduce the POV pushers or if they can become more moderate, we can go back about the business of editing the Wikipedia or some other favorite past time like writing our blogs! Igor Berger (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace edit warring warning template

What do you think about making an Edit warring warning template? While we have Template:Uw-own3 but it may not directly address the problem. While many editors from time to time envolve in edit warring, we recommend to follow WP:DR. But the problem is WP:SPA anon IP's, soclpuppets, meatpuppets and other WP:ABF editors to not respect WP:consensus and do not listen to reasoning by established Wikipedia good faith editors. Many times the POV editors do not violate WP:CIVIL or WP:3RR in policy but they violate it in spirit via tendentious editing, slowly and surely grinding an article for their POV, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. We want to WP:AGF with all editors, established and new, but when an editor is told politely, on their talk page and article talk pages, to respect and follow the consensus of the editors involved in the specific article, still they do not, they should be warned with a template of their behaviour. The template warnings can be escalated while seeking WP:DR at the same time. Also, do we have WP essay that deals with edit warring? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much of an opinion on this one way or the other, Igor. I don't get involved in edit wars very often but when I do, I usually avoid throwing templates at people. If I can't reason with the person and they're out of line, I'll go and bring in others to offer neutral third party opinions. So I don't have much useful experience to offer you. Perhaps you might want to raise this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- I think you might engender some useful discussion on that page about this issue and your idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I always ask for third opinions and follow other methods of dispute resolution but often with these type of editors they are not interested in listening. Also to bother other editors again and again maybe seen as WP:canvassing. So I am thinking of carrot and a stick approach when dealing with such problems. I will take your advice and raise the proposal on 3RR talk page and see what other experienced editors think. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the kind of thing you bring up at an admin's talk page. If you have a general suggestion, post it at WP:VPR. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:03, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know A. B. for a while now and I feel comfortable asking his advice, especially that he is part of the Wikipedia Spam project, like me, and I thought the template should be in the section of warning templates, which are referenced from the project. But thank you for your suggestion and I will raise the question at the village pump. Igor Berger (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, Equazcion, but thanks for your concern -- and for watching over my talk page (I'm not around as much as I'd like these days). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.B. I invited Equazcion to comment because I respect his knowledge of Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

I'm out of my depth here and I hope I'm doing the right thing by posting this.

I have an issue with the way that content is being dis[layed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment

The issue is the unfounded and unproved list of allegations of collusion about the regiment. Sources are being used which are partisan and not factual. I am now in an editing war with more than one user. The others are insisting upon having the controversial material in whereas I prefer to see only the facts. I have left in proven allegations i.e court cases but do not want to see other adding material which is deliberately misleading (desgined to make the reader think the regiment was corrupt).

Can you help me navigate through whatever procedures I need to get involved in please?

GDD1000 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd start by discussing the links one by one on the talk page: Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment

Be patient and spend the time necessary to reach consensus on the contested parts of the article, line by line, link by link.

If this doesn't work, you can go to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for more advice.

Good luck, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning up all the modelsobserver.com spam! -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- this makes my day! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Shark face 217 20:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q & ..

Any chance of a SpamReportBot option on {{LinkSummary}} like meta? Also, for large removals of BL'd links that require a less delecate approach, there is RoboMaxCyberSem Task 4.--Hu12 (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be slow in replying. Thanks for the word about the bot.

As for the template, folks are working on it now:

meta:Template talk:LinkSummary

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like it

Comments here are welcome, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Nacion (Costa Rica)

As you suggested, I created a stub for La Nación (San José), and I found there was already a La Nación (disambiguation) page, that already listed the Costa Rican newspaper as (San José) rather than (Costa Rica), so I kept that title. And just in case, I also made the redirectioning of La Nacion (San José), La Nación (Costa Rica), and La Nacion (Costa Rica), because it is common for English speaker not to use the Spanish accent. Thanks for your prompt help in removing www.nacion.com from the spam blacklist. Mariordo (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticos rule. Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

Should this be deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_SRS/Secret_Page --What does this button do? (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be slow in responding. Looks harmless to me. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is going to sound stupid and random but...

can you add gallon man day to the main page tomorrow? it's for my math class. i may get extra credit.

Spockezri (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VO

If you'd like, I can bring up a harrassment charge against you for restoring VO's harrassment. Sound good? Let me know. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user is allowed to express a certain degree of criticism, as you have so often done yourself, particularly with regard to Videmus Omnia. There's a point at which criticism crosses a line, however. At the same time, it was inappropriate to delete all of Videmus Omnia's comments on his own user page, which is why I restored them while redacting names. At this point, the fact that more was said is only available to someone who wishes to read the page history, however it will not be picked up by Google and other search engines.

Videmus Omnia is largely retired but remains in good standing with this project. My edit was a good-faith attempt to balance his right to criticize with yours and other's rights. If you believe this constituted harassment on my part, then by all means, go ahead and ask for a review of my actions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, here's a forum for you to take this to: WP:ANI#Incipient edit war at User:Videmus Omnia --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

restore and protect? how did you become an admin? I guess you missed the part about being involved in a topic and also acting as an admin on said topic. (I'm expressing my criticism, as I've "so often done"). Jim62sch^dissera! 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the version I reverted. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue -- see:

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support your page protection

See this ANI thread about the edit warring at User:Videmus Omnia. Please discuss there. I've sent this notice to everyone editing that page, but I did see that you tried a different approach of redacting the names. Sadly, it didn't work. I support your protection of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your grown-up intervention. The only thing I know was correct in all of this back and forth (including my own edits) was the temporary protection. We don't need a circular firing squad. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Videmus Omnia

How a bout removing the section entirely. User:Videmus Omnia is gone. Wikipedia is not MySpace or blog, and for him to return for the sole purpose of posting WP:NPAs (even if its true), is inapropriate. You've deleted it 3 times already per hs request, It would be a mistake to think of it as his homepage for parting shots on other members.--Hu12 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, I'm open to what other neutral admins such as yourself want to do with this one. A good place to comment on this would be at WP:ANI#Incipient edit war at User:Videmus Omnia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering

I know you are very active in the anti-spam field. there are some great bots that can help with gathering information on IRC. I would welcome you to join us as I know those tools would do a lot of good for you. I find that they are great for researching who added what spam to what pages. Please let me know if you need help figureing out IRC. β^{_{command 2}} 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blessings of allah

		The Islamic Barnstar Award
		For being great in everything, I give you the most coveted barnstar of them all! Keep it up. 70.234.110.141 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request help deleting entry

When you have time, I would appreciate your assistance deleting all but my most current entry on the talk page for Ken Alibek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ken_Alibek. After I read my entries, I determined I could use even more neutral language than I had previously. Thanks very much for your help. Next Generation Next Generation (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just going to have to do this by hand. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

RE.whitelist request The site hosts 3000+ Hindustani classical & semi classical music as well as old film songs, withought specifying any copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers for those videos or songs. Not sure if its unsuitable per Linking to copyrighted works? --Hu12 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#mehfiltube_DOT_magnify_DOT_net. My sense is that our burden of proof on copyright clearance is a lot lower for sites we link to than for material we actually upload to our own site. I'm no copyright expert, though.

My bias is to whitelist deep links for regular editors assuming they make a reasonable request. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q

AB, I have had a couple of messages left on my talk page about spam to the ZEMG network which I imagine is just stuff which should have been posted to Project Wikispam. Is this one you have ever come across? --BozMo talk 05:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the background

I saw the two messages you got.^[17][18] I hate to see people abusing nice hard working volunteers like you, especially when it's the abuser that's been at fault. His messages to you are consistent with the uncivil behaviour described in the reports above.

If it bothers you, by all means, tell him to leave you alone and point him my way. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah I would rather he abused me than spam. Only the mystery was bugging me and that's solved thanks. --BozMo talk 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:A. B./April 2008