User talk:Hu12

6,879,052 /Sandboxx

Friday

6

September

03:09 UTC

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

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

---

Welcome

Welcome to the talk page --Hu12 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

question

Is this the correct location to raise concerns about a possible conflict of interest? --Heraldic 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

Best place for reporting COI is Wikipedia:COI/N. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Copacabana

Why the hell did you delete my entry in the discussion in the Copacabana article? That was uncalled for. Rsazevedo (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

must have got removed in the move. sorry, repost--Hu12 (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[King David Isle of Man Sale of Titles]

Pardon the intrusion once again. I'm writing you in the hopes of avoiding an edit war between myself and user Heraldic. You are the most senior editor on this page and I was looking for your feedback.

The following is an uncited statement under the heading Sale of Titles, There is no historical evidence that the Kings or Lords of Man ever granted noble titles.

I requested that this be cited and user Heraldic reverted the edit saying, You cannot request evidence that something does not exist. Howe should provide detail

I'm thinking that this statement uncited is against WP:V. Your thoughts?--Lazydown (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I jumped in and made this edit. a statement of that nature should be cited, however there probably is no historical evidence that the Kings or Lords of Man ever granted noble titles. Thus removed. This should satisfy Neutrality. --Hu12 (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User Newguy34, on my talk page, has accused me of fabricating the following source, Ancestry.com. One World Tree, Thomas Stanley II to David Drew Howe, on line database. Provo, Utah. The Generations Network, Inc., retrieved 27, December When I explained that anyone could get a free trial and follow the names on the pedigree as I did, he then claimed that Howe falsely added his name into the pedigree on Ancestry.com. I explained to him that his pedigree was part of the OneWorldTree project and it was peer reviewed. I think this is in extremely poor taste and opens up Wikipedia to serious libel problems allowing him to continue with his rants and false accusations and deleting verifiable third-party citations. Any suggestions?--Lazydown (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If its availiable through a link to be verified add one, if requires a registration or trial, create a section on the talk page and text dump the relevant part(don't edit but keep it a reasonble size). Yea i know what I've said before, but much like this case there are exceptions. Remember the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section on history of claims, noble titles and micronations. It seems to go against WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. I cited both as a reason. I know it will probably get reverted by the ususual suspects but the article is really being skewed towards the negative. I've left some comments on the BLP notice board but it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. If it continues this way it should be deleted altogther.--Lazydown (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left my response (I guess I'm elevated to a "usual suspect") on the article's talk page. The unilateral deletion was wholly inappropriate, IMO. Newguy34 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To date, Lazydown has not posted the suggested material on the article's talk page. IYO, should it be deleted as a source? Newguy34 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Heraldic's latest edit to the page. He has bolded comments in the reaction to claim section from the Isle of Man government and Buckingham Palace. In his comment on the edit he stated he was "Emphasis added for clarity." I don't want to start an edit war with him but he is clearly adding emphasis to his POV and not for clarity.--Lazydown (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry.com as a reliable source?

I can not see how Ancestry.com can be used as a reliable source, but in the end, it's for all of us to decide. From a NYT article on the site, "Ancestry.com — the most widely used — is the flagship site of Generations Network in Provo, Utah, .. has free content, including a family tree maker, but also lets users search immigration, census and military records for fees that depend on the level of records sought."

From All Things Digital, "Each person on a family tree has his or her own page with a life-events timeline and the records that you attach to the profile [emphasis added]."

From Ancestry.com's site, "Note: Ancestry World Tree GEDCOM files are voluntarily submitted by Ancestry users like yourself. We take all files "as is" and cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information contained in this database. We regret we cannot assist you in your personal research or prevent duplication of data. Our goal is to provide these user-contributed files to aid you in finding and/or correcting your family information."

Anscestry.com is clearly a "do-it-yourself" geneaology website. I can find no evidence that there is any peer reviewing of thie information. Your thoughts? Newguy34 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should be left out. Because the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, and withought discussion or text to even verify to reach consensus, it should not be included until its verified. From the Anscestry.com quote I very much doubt, it can be considered a WP:RS.--Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Hu12. I see that the reference has been removed. Best, Newguy34 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about info box

Greetings! I'm curious about the box to the right in my biography page. I've read through some of the edits and the feeling seemed to be that my connection as a direct descendant of Thomas II could not be included because there was no source that could be used. However, the box is marked with the disclaimer "Claim lacks independent verification". It also lists my parents, wife and child, all of which lack independent verification. Would it not be sufficent then to also list my connection to Thomas II given that the disclaimer is posted? Thank you for your time and attention. David Howe--70.17.223.254 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. One would think, given that assertion. However your family has recieved independent verification by proxy of media coverage. As I'm sure you have noticed, it seems to be a contentious fact. As with any page, they are never complete and there is never a final draft. No rush. I would however recommend you register an account and participate on the talk page. Also it would be helpful to upload your Armorial bearings or relevent images (all of which would need to assert public domain, fair use, or a free license), for the article. Obviosly thats all up to you. Either way you participation is welcome, and don't be discouraged by detractors.--Hu12 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I will sign up. I'm not too bothered by the detractors. They exist and I don't believe in siliencing anyone for their opinions, even if I disagree. I've maintained from the start of my claim that the only people with any genuine knowledge and insite in to my claim have all been dead a very long time. Everything else is speculation. I appreciate your interest in presenting a neutral perspective. Regards, David.--70.17.223.254 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How do I go about uploading the arms and any pictures? And, I imagine that I can't add these to the page myself, correct? Thanks, David--Kingofmann (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Added images

Thanks for the welcome. I just uploaded my picture, arms, badge and monogram for use.--Kingofmann (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, myself or any of the other editors can add them into the article. You can add them to the articles talk page if you like, no policies against that. Image bots might leave messages for "rationales", so be sure they are sourced accordingly. I'll have look. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added them to Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)#Images. --Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, how can I delete my photo? Sorry to be a pest, but I have a feeling that this one will be used imporperly.--Kingofmann (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've deleted it and cited your request above.--Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Realizing that I don't want to see my arms on a bottle of beer that I'm not going to get royalties on, is there any way to display them on Wikipedia under limited rights so they are still protected?--Kingofmann (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the GFDL only, as the license has to be published along with the picture each time. See WP:GFDL#2. VERBATIM COPYING. They can't cram 3 pages of license text on a beer bottle. MER-C 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

His claim to be King of Mann

I noticed that a person going by "Heraldic" made an edit today noting a possible flaw in my Gazette notice regarding the date of the grant to King John I. In the interest of a neutral article, I address this issue at www.hmkingdavid.homestead.com/basis.html, linked through the news page in the body of the copy of my claim. I'm not suggesting you have to do anything with that, but obviously I'm not supposed to be making edits to my own biography here. Thanks,--Kingofmann (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing it up on the talk page would be appropriate. More info on COI Wikipedia:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Selling Noble Titles

I just thought I would alert you to a recent edit of mine. I added that the sale of noble titles dates back to at least 1615 in England with James I. I added this to demonstrate to the unintended reader that the sale of titles was not a new innovation. I think that is important for NPOV. It was deleted once already by Newguy34 who seems to have made a sport out of deleting my edits. I have readded the statement with the explanation. I will watch it, but I'm hoping to avoid an edit war. Perhaps you could give your opinion regarding my edit. Thanks.--Lazydown (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, once again my friend Lazydown has accused me of "making a sport out of deleting his edits" because I, presumably, have some axe to grind. It seems as though every edit that he does not agree with is somehow violating NPOV. The reality, as you know, is that Lazydown posts edits that seek to promote Howe's claims, and then ducks back behind NPOV or other WP policies du jour. As I stated on the article's talk page (which I think is the appropriate venue for these discussions), the sale of noble titles in England is of little relevance to a biographical article about someone claiming the throne of another country. Mauls has made an edit that I find acceptable and the truly does reflect a NPOV, Lazydown's opinion aside. Best, Newguy34 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

SPA?

I am curious about your designation [1] here that 151.204.231.247 is a Single Purpose Account. Upon looking at the uesrs contributions Special:Contributions/151.204.231.247, i noticed that the editor seemed to be an editor who had just begun on wikipedia. However, the editor had made only one edit relating to the upcoming 2008 elections. He had made many other edits to other articles about other topics. I find the notion that he could be a Single Purpose Account very questionable. Please explain why you added this designation or i will remove the tag. Perpetualization (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit- additionally, Hkball said in his post on that page that "This is my first Wiki contribution, though I have been a fan for years". Editors commonly focus on one article or one style of article at a time, and when that article is good, they continue to edit other articles. Perpetualization (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC) ignore my edit please. Perpetualization (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

An anon IP from from this Verizon Internet hotspot is in all probability not a single user and appears to be multiple anons, note the gaps and irregularities in edits.--Hu12 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Knataka

Hi there. As suggested by you, I've put a section in the noticeboard a few times, although somehow, the section on this user has always been overlooked. I've adjusted the title and hope it isn't ignored this time. Maybe you could go through it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock-puppetry.2C_Vandalism.2C_Creation_of_Multiple_User_Names

Thanks heaps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems no one bothered on the noticeboard. It does seem to have stopped(for now), however if it continues i'll pursue it. thanks again for the follow-up. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jaws_Renovation.jpg

This image isn't fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.215.101 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

also the Jaws part of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Studios_Studio_Tour_%28Hollywood%29 needs to be removed, was extracted from blacklisted site. the text is not allowed to be reproduced on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.215.101 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Neko Rahmen + Vuze

Thank you for your ongoing efforts to improve Wikipedia. I have a question and comment. I've noticed that you removed the link to Vuze's official Neko Rahmen channel from the Neko Rahmen wikipedia entry.

1. (cur) (last) 23:28, 28 December 2007 Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (3,744 bytes) (→External links - rvt) (undo)
   

What is the standard for the official anime company links to the anime they are licensing or have created? I've noticed most of the anime wikipedia listings have links to companies like ADV, or Funimation, etc. Vuze is the exclusive distributor outside of Japan and also created the only English subtitled version of this anime. In my humble opinion, an external link to the company that is the exclusive distributor outside Japan and creator of the official English subtitled versions is a benefit to Wikipedia -- just as it's a benefit for the many other examples with other anime series where this is the case. Though Vuze is not as well known, it serves the same function as other well known anime distributors.

Thanks a bunch -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manga007 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 December 2007

I would agree with you under different circumstances, however the link has been blacklisted as a result of extensively spamming, see this. sorry--Hu12 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

-Thanks for responding. This really isn't a big deal. And I don't care all that much but I'm trying to understand this process. I looked over the link you cited and saw that Vuze (also known as Azureus) was cited for creating articles on "Vuze", "Vuze, Inc." and "Azureus". So to get this straight, Vuze is blacklisted for creating articles on itself and now no one can now post a link to Vuze? Really no big deal, but I'm curious to learn more about how a subject/entity can put itself into a position where no one can ever link to them in the future. Seems scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manga007 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The temptation for self promotion can be great, especialy this being one of the top internet sites and one that anyone can edit. Many abuse the openess of wikipedia, and those that get caught are delt with accordingly. This explains it somewhat Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. see also What Wikipedia is not. I've added a welcome message to your talk page, which has many helpful links to guidelines, policies and other useful stuff. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

63.226.228.171

It looks like your 24 hour block of 63.226.228.171 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) didn't have the intended result. First edit after the block expired was to add the link to ridetheslut.com back to South Lake Union Streetcar.[2] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bobblehead, I've extended the block for a week. Based on what appears to be the beginning of a pattern, more drastic measures may be needed if continued. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked From Editing

Hu12, when did I ever once use wikipedia for advertising? I have never done this in my life. Your rationale for the block is incoherent in terms of the definition of advertising. Can you please explain yourself? 205.200.244.98 (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I supplied a clear and specific block reason in your talk page which indicates why you were blocked. I'll repeat it since you appear to not understand. You were blocked for continued use of wikipedia for promotion. Despite the obvious community disapproval of your behavior outlined in the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#pygmalionbooks.org, you appear to refuse to 'get the point'. To avoid future blocks for disruption don't engage in the following;

• Spamming
• Breach Wikipedia policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus and obvious community disapproval among uninvolved users that it is disruptive.
• Harassment
• Engage in using accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of anti-spam guidelines.

If you continue to use wikipedia for promotion, you will be blocked again.--Hu12 (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Handley

Hi - you deleted this article for copyright reasons. As he was a top player for Tottenham Hotspur in his time, could you possibly re-instate it so that I can improve it by removing any copyright problems and adding appropriate references. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. thanks for the note--Hu12 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Libre Society

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've created a discussion page for the above article and would appreciate it if you would take a look. Feel completely free to delete this once read... And the Lion (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

new year

In hope that we will work together in the new year. DGG (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, as do I. You are an asset to Wikipedia, there is much I could learn much from that. Wishing you a happy new year. --Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Deferwps

Template:Deferwps has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. RichardΩ612 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for really simple conflict resolution

The page copacabana has a list. Me and the user Rsazevedo are having conflicts as to how organize the list (which should come first on the list?)

Since you are impartial to the issue and if you have the time, could you please organize the list anyway you want so the conflict could be resolved?

It would take less than a minute, thanks.

EconomistBR (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I took some liberty to arrange it in an attempt to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Hopefuly this agrees with both of you. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention, your impartial ruling has been most welcomed. I am in no position to agree or disagree with your decision, simply to acknowledge it.

EconomistBR (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User Rsazevedo rejected your conflict resolution decision on the page Copacabana. Me and user Rsazevedo are not impartial to the matter. He wants to have Copacabana, Bolivia on top of the list and I don't want that.

EconomistBR (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the exchange of insults, you can clearly see from the history of the pages being discussed that it was the other party and not me who started this imbecile "edit-war" insulting and provoking me. Furthermore, I profoundly disagree with your attempt to correct the conflict. You have revealed yourself to be tremendously partial do EconomistBR's opinion, and frankly I don't see where are you basing your authority to mediate this matter. Can you please explain the reasons why you put the list in this page the way you did? EconomistBR is the one who is being intolerant and impartial in this matter, considering he is both from Brazil and from Rio and cannot stand to see Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro in any position in the list other than 1st. I have set the list in a logical and rational way (even though I am Brazilian, and not Bolivian as it has been claimed by the other party), that is, the first place in the world to be named Copacabana, followed by other cities in the world, followed by neighbourhoods and then songs and shows with that name -- an order which you have not even bothered to discuss. Nothing in the page you have referred to explain the subject satisfatorily; I would appreciate some further explanation of your actions, rather than unsubstantiated dictatorial acts. For the good of Wikipedia. Rsazevedo (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this has gotten out of hand, and the personal attacks you both have engaged in is unacceptable. Rather than dishing out blocks for edit warring and WP:NPA, My attempted was to stop this and and find a WP:MOS solution, based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Your tendentious editing has continued on the article, Copacabana (disambiguation) in pursuit of a certain point for an extended period of time. As a result of attempting to win a content dispute through brute force, I've protected the page. Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. --Hu12 (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Hu12, I didn't want to drag you into this, honestly. I really thought your conflict resolution ruling would be the end of this, because I am prepared to accept any ruling you make.

Rsazevedo, you make unfounded and defamatory accusations. I requested Hu12 to resolve our conflict. Since Hu12 is an Wikipedia administrator and therefore his impartiality is above any doubts, we must be prepared to acknowledge and accept his ruling to end our conflict. Instead you, Rsazevedo, accuse him of being partial and a dictator.

Hu12, just impose your conflict resolution decision on this issue, please? He is refusing to accept even your impartial ruling. I am ready to end this right now, but Rsazevedo is going to push this and continue until he has his way.

EconomistBR (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that Hu12's impartiality is beyond any doubts; he is human just like me and you, and an Administrator title doesn't automatically give him the right to be the Bearer of Truth. Furthermore, I did not consider his ruling as impartial, which is the reason why I appealed to the Administrators' Board.

BTW, Hu12, could you please answer the questions I posed to you in the Copacabana talk page, and correct the mistakes I showed? Rsazevedo (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory and slanderous accusation made by Rsazevedo against Hu12

• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 an abusive administrator: "victim of abuse of power by an administrator"
• Rsazevedo accuses Hu12 of having bias: "You have revealed yourself to be tremendously partial do EconomistBR's opinion"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 a dictator: "I would appreciate some further explanation of your actions, rather than unsubstantiated dictatorial acts"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 arrogant: "exercised his prerrogative to block the page in a somewhat arrogant and authoritarian way"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12's opinion unfair: "EconomistBR, the user in question, appealed to an administrator, User:Hu12, who took an unfair and unbalanced view"

This smearing campaign and personal attacks of Rsazevedo against Hu12 is Rsazevedo's vengeance against Hu12, because Hu12's impartial ruling didn't produce satisfactory results to Rsazevedo.

EconomistBR (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Additions of http://dailydooh.com

Hi,

The reason why I added the dailydooh.com site to the list of external links is that, despite being technically a blog, the author is a well-reputed industry analyst. Dailydooh.com is probably the only site that provides specialist cover of the EMEA region. One of the existing external links at the moment (mediadigitalsignage.com) is just a crappy link collection without actual content. Dailydooh.com provides more accurate and up-to-date information, in addition to be less US-centric.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgbustos (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are Links normally to be avoided, I have also removed mediadigitalsignage.com, as it also fails External links policy. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretender to the throne of Mann

I have read all the comments and I do not understand your insistence on deleting the debunking site about Drew Howe unrealroyal.com. I agree that it is opinionated but itis also valid and researched and cited. If people are allowed to exclude all negative information from articles about themselves than Wikipedia becomes a mere advertising vanity site. Please explain why you think this is unacceptable and yet Howe's claims are allowed to be perpetuated as referenced external sites? The Myspace site in particular is pure self advertising puffery and has no place in my opinion but you find that it is acceptable. Howe appears to my reading to be a lying fraud attempting to exploit people's vanities for money and yet you seem to want to remove any negative research into his claims. Has he offered you a peerage, Lord Hu12 of Creg-ny-baa, perhaps? (;-) in case you are wondering) Dabbler (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never liked myspace links in general, but because its an official page of the articles subject its normally allowed, however I think one official (his) is plenty. Ok, unreal-royal dot com. Well asside fron Failing Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources it is also a Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources. This is no more than a blog and should never be used as a source for material about a living person, which in addition, also fails WP:EL. It was created only recently (2007-12-24), according to whois^[3][4], from the activity related to this site it would appear someone is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. Secondly, Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment apply to any kind of attack or harassment in any context. [unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html], Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia...off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. see also WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another or multiple Wikipedians is never acceptable. Lastly, No. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view... Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research. ^[5]--Hu12 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that Howe's entire claim is nothing but Original Research. There does not seem to be any independent verification of his pedigree or claims. Perhaps the entire article should be deleted? Dabbler (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I also do not see unrealroyal.com as "harassment" in our Wiki-sense. If I show how one editor's viewpoint is distorted that is not harassing them, rather it's pointing out the weakness in their logic/position. Scholars do this all day, it's not considered harassment. Can you explain this distinction? I see the site has been blacklisted, that seems a bit extreme, I would request that it be unblacklisted until a ruling that the site itself is actually deemed harassment. Wjhonson (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Protected titles

There are now two methods to protect non-existent pages. One method is to use the protect tab on the deleted page. The second option is to use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Both of these changes were made a few days ago, and thus, the old WP:PT was entirely deprecated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ustaudinger (talk · contribs) block

I sent you an email but not sure if you received it. I think an indef block of Ustaudinger (talk · contribs) for what is essentially a first offense may be a bit harsh. Can we try a more limited block first to see if that changes the behavior? Ronnotel (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Havent checked mail yet, sorry. I took into account the full history, of contributions and the various methods that were being employed to promote on Wikipedia, See WikiProject Spam report. Although I blocked for the bad faith nominations, there is disturbing evidence of broader abuse. I would not oppose your suggestion, however you thoughts on the various IP's and accounts would be appreciated. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been inappropriate behavior, including spamming and disruptive AfD noms and support your block. However, I see some seemingly constructive edits from at least one of the IPs, so I'm hopeful that this user can be brought around. With your consent, shall I reduce the block length to one week? Ronnotel (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. We should keep an eye out, seems the account (Ustaudinger) was used as a bad hand account. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, yes I see your point, however, I do see the handle 'Ustaudinger' used elsewhere ex-Wiki so it's possible that might be his global nick. Ronnotel (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ustaudinger (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) I only get this wiki for the nick (746 projects scanned. 15 contributions found in 1 projects)^[6]. --Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant non-Wiki nick - googling on "ustaudinger activequant" pulls up some non-Wiki hits. I think it's his main nick at the ActiveQuant page. Ronnotel (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm submitting an unrequested opinion, I think Ronnotel might want to have a conversation with Ustaudinger on his Talk page to evaluate his thinking about our policies before shortening the block. This is a convenient moment to request promises of better behavior. The record of abuse of multiple accounts at User talk:Ustaudinger is alarming. One of the accounts listed there has insisted on adding inappropriate information to the International School of Zug. This doesn't suggest much respect for policy, and I wonder what changes in this editor you expect to happen during the one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a conversation is appropriate. However, I wasn't aware that indefinite blocks were handed out as a first response. I see some not terribly aggressive spamming, some newbie outrage at having a pet page deleted, and some immature lashing out at other pages as a response. I don't see trollish behavior (yet) and I'm hopeful that his history of previous constructive edits can continue. None of his previous activity has warranted so much as a warning before today. This user clearly has valuable knowledge in the finance area - if that can be appropriately directed then I think that would be a benefit to the project. We can always indef block later and revert the damage later. Ronnotel (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The evidence was transparent enough to warrent the block, but I'm flexable. However the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. isn't so much.--Hu12 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Had to extend the block (threats disruption during block, page trolling, abuse of tags) this endever would seem to be a big waste of time.--Hu12 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? As a complete tangent, your use of the template brackets {{User:Ustaudinger}} in the header of this section means that section links that are included in the edit history don't work. Better to not use the template brackets, but something like User:Ustaudinger (with the double square brackets). EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== Spam on Particle accelerator article ==

Hi, I'm not an expert, but I put an item on the talk page suggesting re-instatement of the link, which you deleted, to Humphries's text on Particle Acceleration. Details of my reasoning are there, but the policy on external links does recommend textbooks, and it does not appear that he is explicitly offering the book for sale. Just looking at the TOC suggests that it has a lot of material that would be very useful for anyone seeking greater depth than an encyclopedia can offer. Not clear if the person who posted the link is the author, but his few other edits seem generally constructive. Thanks Wwheaton (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Biodiesel

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for continually beating me to vandalism reverts on pages like Biodiesel; nice work. E8 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I do not understand why "Monitor Group" entry was deleted and protected. The reason given is that it was deleted and recreated multiple times. I think that might be because people who didn't know how to create a wiki entry did them. I do not see what is wrong with the article I created today. I put up the article again in the Talk page of the Monitor Group. Please review it and reconsider the deletion and the protection. Thank you. Floralpattern (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Heraldry Online

Please could you explain your reason for deleting all links to heraldry-online.org.uk?--Heraldic 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Monitor

Thanks for the clarification. I based the entry on the articles for other similar organizations, so I thought it would not get deleted. I will try rewriting the entry and check with you. Floralpattern (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)