Jump to content

User talk:Hu12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.81.70.208 (talk) at 01:27, 27 January 2011 (→‎Rotten Tomatoes: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is no Cabal

User talk:Hu12/talkheader


Welcome

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

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

ReWelcome

Welcome back; good to see your name popping up again. Kuru (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kuru. Time permitting of course;)--Hu12 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rand21

So what is it about my external links was it you did not like? I don't really understand what it is you are getting at. I think all of the criteria of my links were okay. Yes it is a blog but this an external pdf of the document mentioned. Just make sure you get past the first page. It is a government doc with unlimited distribution. I guess what I am saying is could you tell me what the problem is in you own words and not in a prepared legal context. I am not that good at legal wording. Any help would be great this was the first time I tried to add anything. PS. I am not connected to this blog in any way either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rand21 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 16 December 2010

Hi Rand21. Your contributions to wikipedia consist only of adding external links and tripped our WP:Spam filter. Looking through those links, they all are an 800 page pdf file, which gives very little context to why it was added. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. here's a bit more on Citing sources. Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for the information Hu12 I will remember that.

junkfooddinner.com

External links I posted were deleted and I'm wondering why. They were links posted on the pages of GWAR, Dave Brockie and Frank Hennenlotter directing readers to an interview with the aforementioned artists. Each page has links to other reviews with other media outlets. I'm curious about the double standard. Why are some external links to interviews okay and mine apparently aren't? Timdeath (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links which is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, all seem to be junkfooddinner.com link related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,NOT a "Link farm" nor a "vehicle for advertising". You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto junkfooddinner.com, right? see Links normally to be avoided Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


So, to get this straight - I've been posting links on wiki pages for Dave Brockie/Gwar, Alex Winter and Frank Hennenlotter. The Dave Brockie pages already has 2 external links to other interviews (Oderous interviewed on Metal Rules! Radio episode 12 and Interview with Oderus Urungus at ion magazine). I'm asking this: Is my interview link somehow "less important" than these or less relevant? Or am I being denied simply because I happened to post the links in rapid succession? Because the latter seems to be the only distinction between my links and other similar links. Timdeath (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; So just pointing out that other links exists in an article doesn't prove that your link should also exist.
Several concerns. junkfooddinner.com is a podcast, blog and personal website. Second, its only a few months old, appears non-notable nor authorative enough for inclusion. Thirdly, Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links to junkfooddinner.com which is considered WP:Spam, and quite possibly a Conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a new blog/fan site. In addition, its a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. I don't think these links meet any of those guidelines.
--Hu12 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We were trying to add a fact that pages like Justanswer.com, Answers.com have competitors. I'm not sure how and why you will keep undoing those additions simply quoting generic guidelines of WP:NOT. I would like to strongly object to your undoings. Where is the authenticity here. Or are we confusing with other spammers or marketeers?? Or are you getting paid by these sites to keep the pages having their own content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.224.162 (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to wikipedia under multiple IP's consist entirely of adding external commercial links and is considered WP:Spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm.
"we would like to have information about our client's website but through a legitimate way- just like others have"[1]
It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Specifically, the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.
Accounts
115.242.199.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
115.242.192.119 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
122.169.143.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
115.242.224.162 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
122.169.139.241 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
122.169.132.183 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Ibloomlabs (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)
Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia, Here are some that apply to your issue:
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than wikipedia. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback follow up questions Hu, Can you prove without any doubt that most of the internet company and other corporate information on Wikipedia is not created by media marketing companies??? I know you can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.132.183 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not other marketeers exist on wikipedia is irrelevent, nor does it make for exemption of official Wikipedia policies. The clear evidence, in this case, shows you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting your company, products and services in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Foster Wallace edit

Hey Hu12, I just reverted an edit you did to the David Foster Wallace page here that looked like you mangled a bit. I then took out a couple of links that I thought maybe were what you were trying to get at and kept one that looked OK. Just a heads up in case I only made it worse. SQGibbon (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks as if your edit corrected it. cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hu12. You have new messages at WT:BIRD.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rare quality content

Dear Hu12, I highly respect your and everybody else's efforts at making and keeping Wikipedia a spam-free zone. However, overly zealous actions lead to less contributions by turning people off who try to add value added content, often to rather obscure topics where it is difficult to find quality information elsewhere. If you have a closer look at some of the links you have removed you will find that there is much that has gone lost. Just to cite you one example: the Kumbh Mela article contains lots of information that you won't find anywhere else as I conducted months of research on this topic in the Library of Congress as well as on the spot during several Kumbh Melas. I could go on giving you many more examples. Most of the users of Wikipedia who are interested in these topics will definitely not agree to the removal. I would recommend that I re-add all the most important links for Wikipedia users to use (being extra careful not include any links that might appear promotional). Agreed? Culturalexchange (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Culturalexchange[reply]

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Additionaly your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote "Knowledge Must". Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Culturalexchange (active IP today 122.176.245.61, ) and the massive amounts of IP's you've used (found here), consist entirely of spamming links and promoting Knowledge Must, which is considered WP:Spam. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen that you also recommend to remove the entries on Knowledge Must and Sound Tamasha. Both of these are social businesses reinvesting all profits for the common good. Both have been widely featured in reputable international media, even further than the references listed there by now. Examples are Rolling Stone Magazine, Sleek Magazine, Deccan Chronicle, Berliner Morgenpost, and so on. Your statement "Has a few links but they seem to be blogs, press releases and trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." will not hold up to closer scrutiny. I kindly ask you to remove the for deletion requests. Thank you. Culturalexchange (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Culturalexchange[reply]

The prima facie evidence still remains. Despite the warnings, you continue to add bloglinks [2][3][4][5], in direct violation of Wikipedias External links and anti-spam guidelines. Arguments of "Merit" is neither a trump card nor does it make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. Rationale for placing any link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage. It is quite evident that your account and IP's are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Knowledge Must [6].
Here are some additional Wikipedia rules that govern this issue:
--Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Christoph Gusy

Hello Hu12. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Christoph Gusy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not all professors are notable, but enough are that A7 is innappropriate. Also re your BLP prods of professors sourced from their university Bios, you might want to read My unsuccessful attempt to broaden BLP prod to articles "sourced" from Myspace, Facebook, Utube and LinkedIn. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 23:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Nation (Fabrykanina)

Hi there. I saw you were removing a bunch of the Fabrykanina reviews from industrial music articles. I wanted to let you know about some discussion that had gone on about that, in case this comes up again later as an issue. This talk page has a summary of what has occurred. I noticed the person in question responded to the archived RSN conversation in this edit. There's nothing else to be done right now, as they seem to have stopped editing, but it seemed like it might be good to make an admin aware for future reference. —Torchiest talk/edits 18:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears it has started back up today, under Special:Contributions/188.47.194.159. I've added a report Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Spamming_of_Fabryka_Industrial_Rock_magazine. Still gathering the many IP's he's used since 2006. this has been going on for a long time, using a multitude of domains. Quite a sorted mess. --Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I've personally removed dozens of links over the past six months or so, but it's slow going, especially if other edits have occurred after the spamming. It was even slower before I had gained rollback privileges! Again, thanks for taking the additional steps. —Torchiest talk/edits 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few links remain (over 100). --Hu12 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar! :) —Torchiest talk/edits 21:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Something has come up with regards to this issue. The person adding these links contacted one of the bands in question. The head of that band got in touch with me to get more information. He believes the site is a legitimate, professional music magazine, and has worked with the editor-in-chief (who is the person adding the links) in the past. I'm in something of a bind on this now, as I'd like to help him out, but it seems like policy goes against the additions. Is it possible we've misread this site, and it actually qualifies as a reliable source? That was my initial concern a few months ago. How does that mesh with the spamming and conflict of interest concerns? I'm preparing a response explaining what has happened, and suggesting the original link submitter needs to actually make their case for the additions. Thanks for your thoughts on this. —Torchiest talk/edits 16:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin....
I'll quote;
  • "reviews are written and posted by me on my own industrial rock magazine, Fabryka"[11]
Fabryka is realy no different than linking to a blog, fansite or personal website which makes it a Link normally to be avoided and fails all Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Fabryka has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published.
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
  • Violated an astounding amount of other policies:
Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Long term spamming (since 2006), Hundreds of links, two deleted "spamvertizing articles", obvious WP:SPA accounts, 28 clearly related IP accounts which exists for the sole and primary purpose of promoting Fabryka and its website in blatent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Sounds like they are continuing their campaign to exploit Wikipedia by Source soliciting you privately for the links inclusion. I would take great offence to that. --Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extensive reply. It's pretty clear cut when you lay it all out like that. —Torchiest talk/edits 17:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack site blacklisting

Thanks for this ... earlier this week I had noticed the page 11 item on their most recent issue, but forgot when I got back to my main system to act on it myself (I only use my admin profile from that system). I should have submitted the link at WP:SBL for someone else to act one when I had been thinking of it.

Incidentally, I don't know if the subjects know they are mentioned there. Should a notice be given on their talk pages, or alternately to their linked email accounts, so that they are aware of the article? --- Barek (talk) - 18:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A private note to their e-mail is probably the most descerete way, along with a talk page note stating they have an e-mail. I'd suspect there may be another URL or website created for the same purpose, so we should all keep an eye out for that. Good work on gathering all that data;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll go ahead and send a quick email to each of them. --- Barek (talk) - 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User block may be a case for lenience

Hi, I'm the wikipedia editor who originally contributed the article tono humano to which a new user User:Lopezcano contributed several academic pdfs in Spanish to the article - most of which he himself wrote and then (as far as I can see) followed Wikipedia guidelines by tagging himself "conflict of interest". I saw the edits when they were done and meant to talk to User:Lopezcano to explain to him the rules and then I would delete and resubmit (since they are actually legitimate academic papers in a field where research is lacking.. and if I'd have been aware of them I would certainly have linked them). Unfortunately I was busy and forgot to contact him. As it is I have now added the links, not as "Bibliography", but as in-line references to the relevant content. It looks to me that this is a case of a newbie trying to be over-honest. But could you please verify that, that he tagged/declared himself "conflict of interest" rather than a bot/editor doing it. If so then I feel slightly guilty as the article contributor for not acting in a timely manner to help him, and then he gets blocked. Your advice/opinion please? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look maybe he didn't tag/declare himself (?). Is the Tag: possible conflict of interest bot-generated? If it is let me know and I'll re-delete those refs which are self authored, but if you don't mind keep the ones by the other academics added at the same time. Many thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome expert opinion from yourself and WP Spam on many external links added to one website by one user. Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Indian_Biodiversity_links. I have also lift a message for WP Spam at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Many_external_links_on_bird_pages. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'll reply over on the talk pages. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see question on the WP:BIRD talk page. MeegsC | Talk 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up templates

Just to let you know that most clean-up templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" (Citation needed) and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Rich. :)--Hu12 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help sought for outing and stalking

Hi, I'm reaching out to you because of your involvement in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Dec 1#eastsidesun.com. I'm one of the four editors "featured" in the eastsidesun.com attack piece, and threatened with outing. Lately with this edit [12], an IP involved with the earlier issues has vandalized my userpage in a threatening fashion. The text implies that they have some kind of access to my computer. Do you have any suggestions for action via the Wikipedia community at this point? Thanks. — Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note from a talk page stalker (the friendly sort). The edit has been deleted so I can't see what exactly was said. General advice is not to confirm or deny that any specific "outing" information is accurate and to request WP:OVERSIGHT (by email is the best way) or at least Revdel. I note the IP address responsible has now been blocked. Regarding access to your computer, this sort of "hacking" is indeed possible, but in my experience is extremely uncommon. The fact that the user concerned has been using the same IP address for nearly two months is a likely indication they are not especially technically skilled in that area. It's worth taking appropriate precautions against phishing, malware etc of course, but any personal information they may or may not have is more likely to have been obtained by other means. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Threats of taking over your computer or threats of hacking into your system are usually empty threats; however, there's always a chance that they have some packaged tool that they acquired somehow. If you received a recent phishing attempt with an attachment that you openned, then it would be a good idea to run a full malware and virus scan with current security software, just to be safe.
As Demiurge mentioned, chances are that if they acquire any information, it more than likely came from other means; but it's always good practice to keep security software updated and scanning your system as a precaution. If you don't have any, email me with which OS you're using, and I can suggest some free alternatives. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry your going through this, Brianhe. Not much more I can add to the great advice above, however i would suggest you carefully select whom you correspond with in your email. Do Not reply, or even correspond with suspicious or suspected emails. Attachments, including pictures, could contain malicious code. Replying to an email may devulge your IP or location ect. delete on sight. Clearly they are attempting to upset you, and its fustrating, however there is a high probability that these are just empty threats. --Hu12 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice, Hu, Demimurge and Barek. I have what I think is decent security at home including strong passwords and antivirus software. As soon as I saw the vandalism I was 99% sure that it was a bluff but it did have to be taken seriously nonetheless. — Brianhe (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist not working

A blacklisted site is slipping through. Please respond. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist will only catch URLs (eg: prefixed with http://), you need an edit filter for catching plain text without the prefix. --Versageek 23:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a fault with the blacklist or was the editor sneaky? They did include the http://..... -- Brangifer (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it had something to do with the markup he was trying to put the URL into.. it clearly broke everything on the page from the insertion point down. His later attempts omitted the http:// . --Versageek 03:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, What Versageek said. I believe there is a word or phrase blacklist somewhere (I forgot where), bolenreport should be added if Text bombing this blacklisted site continues..--Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wóskowka‎

Hello, Hu12. Thank you for your reverting of spam on Wóskowka. Greetings --Tlustulimu (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the greeting. I was having trouble finding a translator, so I posted this in english. Thanks again --Hu12 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blog.zagat.com RSN

You probably didn't notice, but that discussion is archived. I was thinking of moving it back to RSN, but I think a new discussion would be better. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After my last comment i noticed that it was archived...LOL. Wondering why it was so quiet in there.. Agree, more discussion is needed. They clearly fail RS.--Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started a new discussion --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zagat Blog

Hey, I noticed you've been removing the spam entries from the Zagat Blog. I've got no issue with that, but I'm worried that some edits such as this one may be removing actual important information that's easily citable from another source but the deletion may go unnoticed. This really isn't a huge issue, and I know removing the spam link is probably more important, but I just wanted to alert you to it. Thanks so much for your time!--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Yaksar. Glad you caught that, it should be easily citable (if needed), seems there are plenty of valid and Reliable sources availiable. If your curious about the spam case, it can be found here.--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes

Thanks for leaving a note about the deletions you made, I appreciate it. I did see the notice that my edits had been flagged. After reviewing the external links guidelines, I added more because I did not think they were in violation of the intended use of that section. Rotten Tomatoes is specifically listed in the style guidelines for movie pages in both the Critical Reception and External Links sections; also, while the guidelines for actor pages are less specific, Rotten Tomatoes is in the Films WikiProject list of acceptable resources. Given that this information is actively solicited, it would be great to hear your feedback about the appropriate way to add it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&oldid=410282680"