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 Rianon Burnet (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 30 May 2008. 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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..

Welcome to my talk page. If you leave a message here, I will respond here to avoid fragmenting our discussion.

Tuesday
12
November
03:43 UTC


A quiz:

Spammers, friends 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][2]
B. "Worst of all this user is very offensive to females." [3]
C. A stalker "from birmgingham england." [5]
D. A "lesbian feminazi."[6][7] … wearing her "undies in a bunch?" [8]
E. A "robot." [9][10]
F. Hiding a pornographic fire-parrot in Wikipedia's sandbox.[11]
G. Living in Minnesota, USA.[12]
H. Canadian, eh? [13] Tamil, no?[14]
I. A Yankee?[15] A Tennesseean?[16] A Yankee and a "Kerry freak"?[17]
J. Just stupid.[18]
K. All of the above.
L. None of the above.
M. Somedays one, somedays another.

You decide.

•Answer


Another question:


Who edits Wikipedia?
Answer


Essay

re:[19]. You realy need to start an essay (time permitting), thats wonderful stuff!--Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts on the spam-blacklist. It is very helpful. I hope that other's will also offer their thoughts too... so far you are the only one. As you know, there are still some unanswered questions, and I'm not sure the best way to reply, organize key questions, and move forward. I'm afraid that replying below your comment will quickly become confusing. I also want to respect the groups time, and contributions to wikipedia... and I see that my comment was already removed once by a respected wiki admin. What do you suggest?
Sign your username: Newtowiki2 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this guideline:
It lays out some guidelines as to how to conduct a talk page conversation and keep it straight who's saying what. I suggest you go ahead and respond to my comment. I just ask that you not intersperse your comments within mine. As for your comment's removal, I can't speak for another's edits, but he may have been concerned you might be trolling since you're a new user. I wouldn't worry too much about it. --A. B. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That took a long time to sort out, and I'm not sure i did it in the best way I could of. I hope someone with more experience fixes it if a table was not the way to go. I shouldn't have asked so many questions at one time! Me and my curiosity!! Newtowiki2 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea for a next step, but want to know what you think. I tried to put a sample table here, but i must have done it wrong - as the table interfered with some of your other entries - so I reverted. please see the history of the page. thanks! Newtowiki2 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the terse replies -- headed to airport.
  1. I'd hold off for a little while. This is important but not urgent. Unfortunately, Wikipedia maintenance and discussion is often oriented towards urgency vs. importance. (Vandal defacing the Millard Fillmore article vs. what's our strategy). A lot of policy also gets shaped reactively in response to some emotionally engaging drama.
  2. Tables are a lot of work! That format may not be necessary. It can also hamper interactive discussion about data within the table. Let me think about this. I've thought for a long time about developing my own FAQ about spam -- just my personal views and approaches. The nice thing about that is that a FAQ can grow organically better than a table.
  3. We may want to start a separate discussion page.
  4. If you haven't heard from me for a week, feel free to remind me. I'll be traveling in the meantime.
Gotta run. --A. B. (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.[20][21][22][23][24] 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 [25][26][27] 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[28]--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[29]--Hu12 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More range blocks More range blocks [30][31][32][33] 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."[34]... 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."[35] 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. --Sharkface217 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:
--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]

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 17 21 April 2008 About the Signpost
BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested 
Global login, blocking features developed WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology" 
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes WikiProject Report: The Simpsons 
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 (talk) 16:05, 25 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. βcommand 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]

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.[36][37] 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]

Request for guidance

Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WPSPAM#http://spam.welcomehere.org/ and let me know your opinion on it? No one had commented on it thus far, so I'm guessing it was missed by most in the rush of submittals to the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like this is starting to unravel a bit for the spammer. I added to the report.
You're doing great work with spam and we really appreciate all you're doing. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth an eye

On this one cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Next time you add a spam external link you may be warned or blocked. Adding external links that are not used as a resource or reference or not prohibited on wikipedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.64.57 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 May 2008


For background on this editor's history of spamming and trolling using other IPs and user names, see:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 18 2 May 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia 
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA WikiWorld: "World domination" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Did You Know ... Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 19 9 May 2008 About the Signpost
Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities 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 (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penguins and vulcanoes

User:RRvolcanica who owns photovolcanica.com has given permission for the wiki to make free use of the images on that website (see the WP:Volcano talk page). Has this been recognised officially? How are these images appropriately marked, so their license and source are clear and so that they do not get deleted? Snowman (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikiproject:Birds page for current status. Issue probably resolvable by general designation of all images on site in 200x300 pixel resolution (standard preview image size) as useable under GFDL. Larger images are not to be released under GFDL. The 200x300 size should be fine for authors and they can link to picture url on website with note that larger version not GFDL in picture info. Upload to commons is not practical for the large number of images potentially involved. Awaiting comment and still need to amend website page accordingly. RRvolcanica (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4.244.36.110‎ socks

Just so you know, the 86. IPs you posted aren't socks of 4.244.36.110‎, they're socks of 81.129.201.88 (talk · contribs) who got a bit annoyed after I blocked him - note the same type of vandalism. Hut 8.5 17:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I was willing to help 4.244.36.110 guy but my patience is wearing very thin. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thatsqingdao

Here's a link to my original report. I guess I didn't do enough research into the cross-wiki spamming. However, note that this report includes two alternative domain names that redirect to thatsqingdao, which should also be blacklisted. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, you've been very diligent and taken a lot of abuse over time on this one. I appreciate all you've done. See the e-mail I sent you earlier today. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 20 12 May 2008 About the Signpost
Explicit sexual content draws fire Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia 
Foundation receives copyright claim from church Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy 
Update on Citizendium Board candidacies open through May 22 
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks 
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton" News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists 
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 (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlisting of blacklisted website

Hello, where's the proper place to ask for a blacklisted website to become unlisted. Would appreciate any help. Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed unlisting of Priory-of-Sion.com declining your request not more than 2 minutes ago. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you decline the request? The website has been used on WP for years, and constitutes source material for many books and documentaries. It was blacklisted for political, not content, reasons. Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to add links to your own site. See WP:COI and WP:SPAM.
As for your very serious allegations of admin abuse in the blacklisting of your domain, I suggest you present any hard evidence of this at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed unlisting of Priory-of-Sion.com. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to clarify my earlier statements, the website got blacklisted because I was linking to it, that's what I meant by it being blacklisted for political not content, reasons. O was not blaming any WP administrator for my past mistakes. I hear that blacklisted websites do get unlisted and that is what I am requesting, since several WP editors would use it as a source, and I would unequivocally promise not to break WP Policies and Rules again. Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS New Mexico

There has been no change to the christening date for the USS New Mexico. But yet 216.54.92.149 (talk · contribs) used my old reference with the January 2009 date. And just because one good user used this IP address in the past, does not mean that the same user used it this time. It was probably somebody else. I will modify it to warn1 though. ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Odd that two different users using this IP, one a a constructive editor and one a vandal, would pick submarine articles. I see the IP traceroutes to a cable modem in Norfolk area; since that's where the shipyard is, perhaps that explains the coincidence. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam-blacklist

Have added a supplement, a general " how-to: of sorts. Improve if needed, ect. A shortcut has been created WP:BLACK. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look more later but this is impressive/useful - reason for posting here - I think we should steal it for Meta? :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent!! Thank you. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Edge Creations

The Cutting Edge Creations page was flagged for notability and potential conflict of interest around a month ago. Thus far no one has posted any complaints in the discussion section. What is the process for getting these flags removed? 68.178.45.82 (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dug around today, found some reliable references from notable publications (newspapers) that established notability and worked them into the article. I also worked on the article's neutrality some. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Satanic spammer

Thanks for your help and warning to him. He did it again [38] Sticky Parkin 02:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been out for several months for personal reasons. However when i do get to return to wikipedia more regularly i will make it my priority to help with the encyclopedia effort and refrain from using it as a personal website.


Thank you for bringing this to my attention Rianon Burnet 17:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&oldid=216010781"