Jump to content

User talk:A. B.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.200.69.209 (talk) at 22:57, 18 June 2007 (→‎LEVEL 1 INTIMIDATION WARNING NR 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B..

     I'm busy off Wikipedia and may be slow to respond; e-mail me if you need a faster response.

A quiz

Spammers and critics can't agree -- is User:A. B.:

A. "She (because clearly she's a bitch) is just doing her thing up in New Jersey. No one likes you, mother of three. No one."[1]
B. "Worst of all this user is very offensive to females."[2]
  • Later in the same edit: "It makes us females seem very unhappy to think wikipedia.org has something against all females."
  • Same user also edits as Tony.dean[3]
C. A stalker "from birmgingham england".[4]
D. Just a "rogue".
E. Hiding a fire-parrot in Wikipedia's sandbox?[5]
F. All of the above.
G. None of the above.
H. Somedays one, somedays another

You decide. --A. B. (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated by A. B. (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LEVEL 1 INTIMIDATION WARNING NR 2

This is a first degree formal warning out of a set of 3 levels.

You have also added comments on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#workforall.net_linkspam. These comments are unappopriate as the qualification "Spam" is still in dispute in these cases. Spreading unmotivated of disputable accusations can be considered as spam and can seriously harm the interests, reputation and privacy of other users. Deliberate attempts to harm the interests, reputation or privacy of other users is both a criminal offence and is incompatible with Wikipedia:5_Pillars and Wikipedia:Etiquette. In order to interrupt the escalating and ongoing damage allready done You are kindly requested to remove unappropriate and disputed comments within 24hours. In order to keep the discussion together you are kindy invited to participate in discussion at the appropriate location where the discussion is still in progress. Please try to reach Wikipedia:Consensus there. Please do keep to Wikipedia:Etiquette there as well. --Bully-Buster-007 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Level 2 VANDALISM and OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE WARNING

This is a second degree formal warning on a scale of 3 levels.:

-

You and/or Your conspirors have vandalised talk pages and even a request for arbitration at the arbitration Request Page

The contributions history of 17 June 2007 of your conspiror User A._B. alone has 34 counts of qualified vandalism of WorkForAll contributions. This blanking without consent of the opponent party in this dispute has consequence of obstructing normal judicial procedures to come to a settlement in this case. Therefor your actions do not only constitute qualified vandalism as to Wiki:Etiquette, they also constitute qualified obstruction of justice.

As the vandalism seems to be part of large scale a cover-up operation and/or coordinated efforts of a conspiring gang to erase traces of earlier wrongful activities your vandalism can be considered as qualified participation in a criminal gang.

Participation in a criminal gang may involve your unlimited solidary responsibility and financial liability (as opposed to proportionate liability) should this conflict result in criminal proceedings in a later stage.

Request for arbitration in the WorkForAll versus Requestion case

Dear User, dear Wikipedia Arbitre,

An original request for arbitration in this case was initiated by WorkForAll on June 8, 2007. The request was almost immediately vandalised and erased form the arbitration request page even before an arbiter could give his advise. The "same request was again vandalised on 15.06.07 ". Therefore we bring the request to the attention of users and arbiters here again and ask arbiters to consider the case, and undo the tremendous damage to our reputation caused by members of the Spam Project.

Involved parties

-User:Bully-Buster-007 and his advocate after he got wrongfully blocked : User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech
Both representing the think tank “Work and wealth for all” in Brussels (Belgium)
versus
-User:Requestion, User:BozMo, User:Femto, User:A. B.
all members of a group of self-declared spam fighters

Other parties in the dispute were formally informed of this request here here . here and here

Statement by WorkForAll.net

Workforall.net is a respected think tank in Brussels, involving economists, entrepreneurs and philosophers. They publish scientific research as well as economic essays for a wider public. WorkForAll regularly contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 with articles and links under economic titles covered by their research. WWFA staff contributed from different IP's in Belgium. During present discussion they created an account Bully Buster 007.

-

End April spam project member User:Requestion systematically blanked WWFA contributions and links without gaining consent. Early Mai WWFA complained and opened a thread “Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction" on Requestion's talk page.

Early in the debate WWFA agreed that contributions by different staff members had not been coordinated, and that some links were disputable. They excused, and proposed six times to reach consensus where the contributions were appropriate and where not. Although unsolicited third parties requested reversal of blankings, Requestion dismissed a consensus, providing as sole justification for giving all WWFA contributions the qualification "spam" the mere number of their contributions.

-

During the debate WWFA did not attempt to add new contributions, nor committed deliberate “offences" other than disputing Requestion's blankings. Still WorkForAll got illegitimately blocked and blacklisted during the debate obviously as punitive and not as preventive measures. Being wrongfully blocked, WorkForAll asked User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech to defend their interests. They were also blocked, and since then Requestion and his conspirers made further debate impossible by systematically blanking and blocking WorkForAll comments.

-

WorkForAll requests reversal of the blocking and blacklisting because blocking and blacklisting were based on disputable spamming accusations and because the modus operandi of Requestion and the spam project's are wrongfull:

  • Requestion fails to provide justification for giving WorkForAlll’s contributions the qualification “Spam”. During the debate WorkForAll has argued that the spam fighters are misinterpreting WP regulations as according to a universal judicial principle of supremacy of conflicting rules the spam fighters should not be interpreting a general and suggestive WP:EL rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete WP:EL instruction "What to link:" is most explicit, affirmative and absolute in inviting to link the source in case the source is relevant and reliable, but cannot be summarized in an article. Requestion has not disputed this argument, but he has not undone his wrongfull erasals.
  • Requestion is indiscriminately generalising single and disputable spamming to all of the users’ contributions (under the motto “once a spammer, always a spammer”), thereby blanking huge amounts of most valuable information.

The spam fighters also systematically use methods which are incompatible with Fair-play, with Wikipedia regulations and common law:

  • The Spam fighter’s editing procedures constitutes qualified vandalism as they systematically blank well established content often amended and approved by many other users without gaining prior consent, thereby often disturbing neutrality.

Some of the methods of the spam fighters are fully contrary to fair-play and even constitute qualified crime as to common law:

  • Spreading viruses through the WP Sandbox
  • Deliberate misconduct to inflict maximal damage to the reputation of other users: After repeated formal warnings Requestion has continued to spread false accusations over Wikipedia, with the deliberate intend to fool search engines and spread slander about his opponents all over the internet and to ruin their victim's reputation.
- Requestion was remembered here that the qualification “spam” given to the WorkForAll contributions was based on a misinterpretation of WP regulations. Requestion did no longer dispute the arguments and even implicitely agreed that the accusations were false in this debate here..
- User:Requestion and User:.A_B. were very well ware of the damage they were inflicting to their victim’s reputation. Requestion was also remembered here that search engines were already picking up his false accusations, and about the process of damage to the WorkForAll reputation he had set in motion. Even after these explicit warnings, Requestion deliberately refused to stop his false accusations and stop the ongoing process of damage, which proves his bad faith
-In stead Requestion (or his conspirors) erased the warnings, and started conspiring on this talk page to stealthly introduce amendments on EL regulations. The attempt was however remarked by attentive users. [6]This started an edit war on the External Links page.] The conspiracy to change the EL code could only be partially stopped.
  • Disclosure of WP user's name and address with the sole purpose of intimidating opponents and to have their victim’s name associated worldwide with spamming or wrongful activities constitutes a qualified assault on WP user's privacy

For all the reasons above we request Arbiters to agree with

  • 1. the reversal of WorkForAll.net’s illegitimate blocking and blacklisting
  • 2. the reversal and protection of WorkForAll.net’s wrongfully erased contributions and links
  • 3. to agree to appropriate measures to remediate to the massive damage done to WorkForAll.net ‘s reputation as a respectable think tank such as publication of an excuse on the most visible places.
  • 4. to agree to measures to prevent users acting in bad faith such as User:Requestion, User:BozMo, User:Femto and User:A. B. to repeat their destructive work.

Please see more evidence in this case at : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Advocates_For_Free_Speech&diff=132799349&oldid=132721521


Thank You for considering the case.

On behalf of WWFA staff.

Statements by the opponent parties

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion

OK, Bully-Buster-007, see the following:
  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#workforall.net
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#Requestion
  3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard (Permanent link)
  4. User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#workforall.net_linkspam (Permanent link)
  5. User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction (Permanent link)
  6. User_talk:Ioannes_Pragensis#Can_You_help_against_vandalism_.3F (Permanent link)
  7. Talk:Economic_data#Workforall.net_external_link
  8. User_talk:Kuru#ciber_bullying (Permanent link)
  9. User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#Welcome.2C (Permanent link)
  10. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#workforall.net linkspam (Permanent link)
  11. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Freedom of speech (Permanent link)
  12. User talk:Jitse Niesen#80.200.73.228 (Permanent link)
workforall accounts:
  1. 217.136.84.49 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  2. 217.136.87.32 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  3. 217.136.89.14 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  4. 217.136.93.7 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  5. 217.136.94.66 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  6. 217.136.95.116 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  7. 80.200.64.143 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  8. 80.200.70.132 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  9. 80.200.73.228 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  10. 80.201.177.106 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  11. 80.201.18.252 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  12. 80.201.19.94 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  13. 80.201.212.87 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  14. 80.201.213.67 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  15. 80.201.24.135 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  16. 80.201.26.155 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  17. 81.240.150.59 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  18. 81.240.157.210 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  19. 81.241.68.119 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  20. 81.241.68.247 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  21. 81.241.70.243 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  22. 81.241.71.62 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  23. 81.241.74.121 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  24. 81.241.75.18 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  25. 81.242.54.149 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  26. 81.242.58.154 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  27. 81.242.61.227 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  28. 87.244.130.114 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  29. 87.64.93.128 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  30. Bully-Buster-007 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  31. 81.241.69.230 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
  32. Advocates For Free Speech (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs • status)
See WP:CONSENSUS; editors warning you about inappropriate workforall spamming and/or uncivil behaviour:
  1. Requestion
  2. Matteo
  3. Nlu
  4. Kuru
  5. Hu12
  6. ErikWarmelink
  7. Ioannes Pragensis
  8. A. B.
  9. BozMo
  10. Femto
  11. Beetstra
  12. The way, the truth, and the light
  13. Daniel
  14. Meta:Eagle 101
--A. B. (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Later updated with additional accounts and links.--A. B. (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Workforall, I think you should reconsider your actions. It is true that they are annoying to myself and the many other editors who have told you not to use Wikipedia to promote your web sites and I sense that is a source of gratification for you. At the same time, though they may also begin causing problems for your sites off-Wikipedia.
Every time you use another account we document that fact. Since I listed the accounts above, you're now up to 30+ accounts you've used. Between all of these user talk pages plus your complaints and "warnings" on editors' talk pages, you are gradually creating an interlinked group of 40 to 50 pages discussing workforall, spam and disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia. You're in danger of creating a perfect storm of search engine anti-optimisation, especially given Wikipedia's high page rankings with the major search engines. Consider whether you want these discussions to start appearing near the top of the results for any search on your site or organisation.
Furthermore, the Meta-Wiki spam blacklist is used by all language versions of Wikipedia and all other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Wikiquote and Wiktionary. Beyond that, many (but not all) of the hundreds of non-related sites that also run their sites on MediaWiki software incorporate this blacklist in their own spam-filtering. --A. B. (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

workforall.org repudiates any connection to workforall.net

See this disclaimer posted on workforall.org:

WorkForAll as an independent thinktank maintains the website www.workforall.org
WorkForAll.org has nothing to do with workforall.net...

--A. B. (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do they repudiate any connection to a certain mysterious parrot? Ahhhh, it is all starting to make sense now. (Requestion 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

....??? there is no disclaimer there ??? what now ???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.150.16 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent Images for Deletion nominations

Hi, I notice your nominating a few images for deletion at the moment, however these images will be deleted within the next week as they have been moved to Commons and fall under our speedy deletion criteria. -- Nick t 17:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..Oh. Darn -- I just wasted a ton of time. The watermarked images should probably be deleted from there as well. --A. B. (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bhagwatkumar‎

Hi A.B. I noticed your recent edit to User talk:Bhagwatkumar. I did a previous backlink search on this user, and came across User talk:Mukeshprajapati. I was just going to leave it deleted as spam, but some of the domains look familiar. You might find it interesting, and you may be able to add some context if it was to be reported to WP:WPSPAM. I will leave it with you. I should add that I've checked all the backlinks, and we're clean. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about being an admin?

Hi A. B., I want to nominate you for adminship, I'm pretty sure you would be a good sysop.
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators to check what are admin's roles, and let me know if it's ok for you ;-)
«Snowolf How can I help?» 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I'd say I'm very interested. A recent family emergency, now over, has left me behind on my work off-Wikipedia, so I need to catch up on that first. --A. B. (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you can't nominate, because someone else already did. All we can do is pester him until he accepts. Femto 18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed with SEO article

1. I think you'd make a great admin.

2. If you are very busy, feel free to ignore the following request. I hope your situation resolves in a good way.

3. I've nominated search engine optimization for featured article status. Could you possibly look at the references on the article and then leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization as to whether you think the blogs and forums cited as references qualify as reliable sources. In order to achieve featured article status we need community consensus that the references are reliable. If you know any other Wikipedians who have expertise in this area, we welcome their comments. Thank you! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update on "The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard" - ROFLMAO! I've been selected to speak at the American Marketing Association's convention in October, so save any good stories about marketers sabotaging themselves with their own Wikipedia spam. I'll start a work page in my user space. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Para-Ordnance

I removed the +tag, the company is quite notable. PianoKeys 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

208.116.41.13

[7][8] not you I presume? Femto 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not me! I suggest you block that IP pending open proxy check. --A. B. (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Femto 12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just testing www.php15.com as you blocked it -- it does use the IP I listed (208.116.41.13) --A. B. (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See meta:WikiProject on open proxies/Blocked on frwiki -- list of IPs blocked on fr.wikipedia but not en.wikipedia as of 13 May 2007. If you get the chance you may wish to block them as you have time. I've listed them at User:A. B./Sandbox10 complete with blocking links (I used {{IPvandal}}). --A. B. (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to pass, I don't have much regular experience with the proxy projects. (emergencies and obvious stuff, anytime though). Femto 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Why aren't you an admin? —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, this is a damn good question that deserves an answer. You could at least try to come up with an excuse. :) Femto 14:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

Yeah I've been leaving notices... I'm working on that nasty backlog you guys have at WT:OP —— Eagle101Need help? 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm leaving the notice on the talk page, and redirecting the userpage there. —— Eagle101Need help? 13:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- and at some point in the future, that talk page will be deleted. Then the user page may get deleted, too, as a redirect to a blank and/or non-existent, depending on how Wikipedia's conscientious, diligent, literal-minded bots see the whole situation. That's why it's good to put a notice on the user page. Some open proxies aren't blocked indefinitely but rather for several years, so when the account unblocks, if there's more mischief, nobody knows it was an OP. Alternately, someone protests the block, not understanding why the account is blocked.
From looking at 100s of open proxies in the last several days, notices on user pages seems to be the more common approach.
Thank you so much for working on the backlog. If you're working off my user subpages at User:A. B./Sandbox10#12,640 open proxies from fr.wikipedia, feel free to mark up the sections as you finish them. There are several other people working on these lists and this will prevent duplicated efforts.
If you're not working off my list, you may want to, since I left block log and block buttons there for admins' convenience.
Again, thanks for all your work -- I see you've hit 500+ already!--A. B. (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello A. B., I've also been helping out with the backlog. About which page the {{openproxy}} notice should go on though: Most blocked open proxies I've seen around have the notice on the user talk, such as the ones at WP:OP#Blocked, or the vast majority of Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia. It may be an idea to ask the bot owner to fix the bot in this case. Which bot was removing the notices? --Michael Billington (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

random tutor2u.net connection?

One of my special cases (spammed, blanked, unciviled, AfD'd, blacklisted, and now vanished) added a random tutor2u.net link [9] and I didn't think anything of it until I ran into this User talk:80.176.10.66. I think they might use boston-house.co.uk or be neighbors. Just thought I should send you a note and say thanks for leaving such a detailed description for me to find 5 months later! (Requestion 21:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My RfA

Hi A. B. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calton and WP:OWN

Seems that Calton is bordering on "owning" how Wikipedia treats Centiare. How does that make you feel? --72.94.160.88 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel one way or the other. I think Centiare is over the line into the realm of notability and Calton doesn't. That hardly equals "own". --A. B. (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello A.B.,


Maniwar made me aware of the rules on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. The Wikipedia Community needs to receive correct information to solve their problems.


1) The articles on the deadlift, Press (Overhead), military press give little info about the technique on the lifts. Most injuries are caused because of inappropriate technique. The external showed correct technique/tips for the lifts.

2) Article on Stress (medicine): The GAS stress model is fundamental to weight training, strength training, powerlifting, periodization,... No info is given on the GAS model from a physical stress point of view.

3) Article on Low back pain: posture/misaligned pelvis is one of the reasons for lower back pain. Glute Activation Work is a proven solution.


Do you consider the external links for the articles listed above an added value to the Wikipedia Community?


Thank you for your time


--Stronglifts 19:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why I still haven't had a reply to my question A.B. ?--Stronglifts 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to be slow in responding.
You're just not allowed to link to your own site. I don't get to do this nor do the Queen of England and Bill Gates. See the Conflict of Interest Guideline. You received 3 warnings on this before I ever got involved.[10][11][12]
If you wish, you can raise this issue with the folks at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard or at WikiProject Spam for a second opinion and some advice. --A. B. (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No problem A.B. thanks for replying.
The Conflict of Interest Guideline says that linking to your own website should be avoided or exercised with great caution.
Nothing is said about "being not allowed to link to your own site".
I'll raise this issue with the folks at at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard for a second opinion.
Thank you for your time.
--Stronglifts 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Billingham

Hi, why are you "concerned that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline for Biographies"? I have never seen him or read any of his novels but just came across an essay he has written, and that's why I looked up his article in Wikipedia. It gave me quite useful information.

Even without adding to the article, I think we could remove the tag you added in April. Would you be prepared to do so? All the best, <KF> 23:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple -- take a look at the Notability Guideline for Biographies; it will tell you what needs to be done to demonstrate notability. Just add some references that meet the Guideline's requirement and I'll be happy to take off the tag. In the meantime, the tag serves as a flag that this needs to be done.
I hope this helps. --A. B. (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC

Rizos Thomas(www.pargatravel.eu)

Hello wikipedia, my name is Rizos Thomas and you have put my link www.pargatravel.eu in your spam. I was very suprised when i have see this! But i have found after that you have make only your work! Because i have found that my son John have put this link very much times in your wikipedia! I ll give you a big sorry now for what is happens and i ll ask you if i can put back my link in your wikipedia but only in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parga and http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%B3%CE%B1

because my site is only in the Greek and in the Englisch language!

Thank you again and sorry for the trubble! And you can be sure that this will not happend again because i have explane to my son that your encycolopedia are not a playground but it needs much time to make this encyclopedia

It was very friendly from you if you answer me with a e-mail and it is a pleasure for me if i can restore my sons false and have you this summer as my guests in Parga!

My best Regards Rizos Thomas


RIZOSTRAVEL Riga Fereu str. 18 48060 Parga Greece Tel.: +30/26840/32746 Mob.:+30/6945754390 Fax.: +30/26840/32746 Email: rizostravel@yahoo.gr www.pargatravel.eu

Spam hunter!

Hi A.B. Thanks for all the reports and for all the work you do on finding new spammed domains. I am impressed by your last report on WT:WPSPAM.

I have a question and a suggestion, though. The question: when you report, could you for IPs that spam wikipedia include the range where that IP is in (preferably the CIDR). That makes it easier to blacklist IPs on COIBot (not that it is a trouble for me to find them). The suggestion, you might be interested in the IRC channels Link additions on en.wikipedia and edits on small wikipedia. The former runs a linkwatcher, shadowbot, COIBot etc. On the latter normally also a linkwatcher is active (but it is down at the moment), as are some other watching bots (also COIBot is there). We also have some other nifty tools (though again, one that you might be very interested in is also down at the moment). If you'd like to speak to us, we talk in the talk channel (we also command the bots there).

Hope to see you there, but in any case, see you around, happy editing, and happy hunting! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You know they're hungry for Google love....

The Spamstar of Glory
Presented to A. B. for extraordinary effort and diligence fighting spam on Wikipedia.

That was some nest you uncovered there. Fantastic work! -- SiobhanHansa 13:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

85.185.159.141 has violated spam warning

85.185.159.141 has been adding spam links to Wikipedia again:

You previously gave that IP their "only warning". Gronky 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 week. Femto 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 12:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this RfC and I don't have any recollection being involved with any of this. Am I missing something? --A. B. (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish#Discussion

Hi A.B. - your oppose seems to be in the neutral section of this debate. Could you take a look when you have a mo, just to clarify for the 'crats so they know where you stand. Thanks! Pedro |  Chat  16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention -- I meant that as an "oppose". I see someone already moved my comment.--A. B. (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


yamour.com

Hi. On fy: you removed a link from fy:wikipedia, because of (→Sjoch ek - meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#yamour.com). But I've looked at the page and found it useful, and I've looked up that site on those talk pages, and it says they are not going to be blacklisted. So

  1. Why is it blacklisted after all?
  2. Why are you removing it?
  3. (Are you actually able to read what you're doing or do you not understand Frisian?)

Mysha

Mysha, I already responded in considerable detail to the complaint you left on Meta-wiki:
I think that will answer your first question.
As to your other questions:
  • I removed these links purely as a courtesy. Once blacklisted, these articles are "locked down" by the MediaWiki software and can not be edited until the blacklisted link is deleted or disabled (by putting a space between "http://" and the rest of the link). So someone, somewhere is going to have to disable or remove those links anyway. The pop-up spam filter warning does not make it especially obvious how an editor can fix the problem (at least not to all the people that come to Meta to ask how to fix the problem). I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the person is in fy:Ljouwert, es:Valencia, id:Jakarta or en:Toronto.
  • No, I don't read Frysian, but I don't think your spammer did either since, like most cross-wiki spammers, he didn't bother translating his link into Frisian:
    • "[http:// www.yamour.com/evolution/wikipedia.html Wikipedia evolution through time]"
    • The spam link led to a page in English, not Frysian.
    • It seemed pretty straightforward to delete the link without damaging the integrity of the article.
  • Given the widespread spamming, GFDL copyright infringement, uncivil behaviour, and Wikipedia content deletion manifested by that person elsewhere on and off-Wikipedia, I think all who have looked at this site have found it very problematic for Wikipedia.
Presently your fy:Wikipedia article is a 4-sentence stub. As you go to expand it, you may wish to look at some of these for sources of references:
  1. en:Wikipedia#References
  2. fr:Wikipedia#Bibliographie
  3. fr:Wikipedia#Notes et références
  4. de:Wikipedia#Quellen
  5. de:Wikipedia#Literatur
  6. de:Wikipedia#Weblinks
I think you may find some stuff you like as much or more than the yamour.com page.
I hope this is helpful.
--A. B. (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I also left you brief notes at:
--A. B. (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my first question: I understand how this came to pass, though the why is beyond me. Regarding the wording of the spam filter: Is this a MediaWiki message that can be edited to make it more useful? I do understand that you consider your editing a courtesy, but it still means you're removing the text. The fact that someone overenthousiastically added it to all Wikipedia doesn't really hurt fy:, but removing the information does. As you mention yourself, the article is rather short, so reducing it even further might not be such a good idea. (The question about speaking the local language refers to me not being sure it's a good thing to edit pages you're not able to read. Indeed this is what the original contributor did, and what you seem to hold against him.) Why you think all who have looked at that site have found it very problematic for Wikipedia, I do not quite understand. The site appears to give all sorts of information and services, noen harmful to Wikipedia, I'd say. In all, I get the impression that informing the wiki, and letting those that can read it decide, would be preferable to removing those links and, in both instances so far, having that reversed afterwards. Mysha

In the interests of centralizing our discussion in one place, I am responding to this on Meta along with the new concerns and criticisms you have raised there. --A. B. (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 24 11 June 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?" News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the brevity, right now I think I'm going to need my first Wiki-vacation ever (unrelated to this.) Take a look at User:Femto/Link cleanup. It's an updated version of User:A. B./Link cleanup, based on an automated scan of where the frames and scripts of these pages redirect to. (I had to disable 9 blacklisted links to save that page, JFYI.) Unchecked and not complete, but useful I guess. Femto 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- thanks! --A. B. (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&oldid=139082670"