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 CRumens (talk | contribs) at 16:50, 26 August 2011 (→‎A MESSAGE TO YOU HU12). 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!!

A MESSAGE TO YOU HU12

It is difficult to admit How Wikipedia is a welcome place actually Hu12? Why my page Best Poems Encyclopedia presenting the anthology i created has been deleted? while it was the same copy as the Project Gutenberg page and Poetry foundation page one. Are you promoting the services of some institutions and not others? Why if it is a 95% identical page, our page is considered as spam and not of these same identical websites links which we find in every poetry page like if Poetry is their own heritage. Is it this the "free" flag of Wikipedia?

And why my account i have created in 2006 "Wikipedia" and created with it the page "Djelloul Marbrook" has been blocked and then deleted?

01:35, 16 April 2006 Longhair (talk | contribs) blocked Wikipedia-editors (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Username) 23:40, 27 October 2006 Gurch (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Wikipedia-editors" ‎ (temporary userpage over 1 month old for indefinitely blocked user)

Why for exemple this Longhair i tried to contact to unblock my account hasn't been deleted while he refused even to reply to my requests to unblock this account?

Is it our IP adresses who seems to you that we come from a third class world and that only what you suggest is the right thing?

We havent thousands and hundreds links like these seo promotters of Poets.org and Poetryfoundation whose links are in every poetry page in this encyclopedia. It looks that it isnt an open encyclopedia. How is it possible that my links have been deleted from pages i have my self created in the past years and you come add links from entities who havent placed any word to create pages of Pablo Neruda and others except in their websites and you give them all credits? It looks like they become your associates?

You did a great work here deleting 10 links i added in 7 months

  1. 16:11, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Edna St. Vincent Millay ‎ (Undid revision 443077999 by 197.200.49.189 (talk)) (top)
  2. 16:10, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Bertolt Brecht ‎ (Undid revision 433112508 by 197.200.63.193 (talk)) (top)
  3. 16:08, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Bob Kaufman ‎ (Undid revision 433111452 by 197.200.63.193 (talk)) (top)
  4. 16:07, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) E. E. Cummings ‎ (Undid revision 432769293 by 197.200.49.31 (talk)) (top)
  5. 16:06, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Anne Sexton ‎ (Undid revision 432591715 by 197.200.52.141 (talk)) (top)
  6. 16:05, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) m Anne Sexton ‎ (Reverted edits by 187.11.97.168 (talk) to last version by 92.18.146.39)
  7. 16:05, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) The Dream of a Common Language ‎ (WP:NOTLINKFARM) (top)
  8. 16:03, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Ogden Nash ‎ (spam) (top)
  9. 16:02, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Matthew Arnold ‎ (Undid revision 444855972 by 197.200.55.3 (talk)) (top)
  10. 16:01, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) m Romantic poetry ‎ (Reverted edits by 197.200.55.3 (talk) to last version by DrJimothyCatface) (top)
  11. 15:59, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) m Samuel Taylor Coleridge ‎ (Reverted edits by CRumens (talk) to last version by Spanglej) (top)
  12. 15:58, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) User:COIBot/Poke ‎ (1) (top)
  13. 15:54, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Carl Sandburg ‎ (copyvio spam) (top)
  14. 15:52, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) T. S. Eliot ‎ (Undid revision 444543364 by 197.200.56.6 (talk)) (top)
  15. 15:49, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Mahmoud Darwish ‎ (Undid revision 440221763 by 197.200.56.62 (talk)) (top)
  16. 15:43, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) m Pablo Neruda ‎ (Reverted edits by 197.200.57.157 (talk) to last version by Spanglej) (top)
  17. 15:28, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) User:Hu12 ‎ (thanks Jimbo) (top)
  18. 15:18, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Hu12 ‎ (→A barnstar for you!: thanks) (top)


And i will surprised to see you delete these poets.org and poetryfoundation.com links placed in every poetry page. I think that this is really what is SPAM when you place tons of links to some privileged clients and dont welcome any other free resources even if they are of more quality of what you are promotting because here it looks that you become an official promotters of some institutions and maybe that you are paid by them.

FREEDOM at the end, you lost the elixir of what has been your key identifier.

=

And if you think that Poets.org is more placed to promote Mahmoud Darwish who is an arab like me, then Bingo... because it looks that you are hunting the IP adresses more than the content itself and this Jimbo is maybe someone who know what he is doing, ask him and i ask have you contributed to create this page????

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.70.208 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent spamming is unaceptable, see WP:LINKSPAM. Spaming Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools Violates our external links policy, WP:ELNO #15. Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of adding links in apparent violation our anti-spam guidelines is subject to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption. Contribute cited text and content, not just bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link-farm. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto rottentomatoes.com, right?--Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted references

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anomie. Didn't even realize there was a cat we could check for those, excellent.--Hu12 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If you're interested in cleaning up that category, BTW, you might want to start with the ones listed at User:AnomieBOT/OrphanReferenceFixer log as "Scan complete. The following references could not be found" or "too b0rken to fix"; Fluorine, for example, is in the cat now but should be fixed by AnomieBOT in a little over 20 minutes (assuming no one else edits the page until then). Anomie⚔ 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dayn Perry

Hi there, I just wanted to check in as to why you removed the two external links on Perry's page, one to his contributions to FanGraphs/NotGraphs and one to an 30 something minute long interview he gave, but left a defunct link to Foxsports and a link to a blog whose last post says: "Hello, loyal readers (both of you). As you may have noticed, the cobwebs have descended upon this place. That’s mostly because I’ve joined the esteemed staff of NotGraphs and am regularly blogging about the lighter side of baseball over yonder in those parts. Some come and join us. Once more, with feeling: NotGraphs.

As for this space, I’ll (maybe) occasionally throw up the odd post every now and again, but for the time being my blogging energies will be applied toward — wait for it — NotGraphs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.43.248 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Cistulli

Hi Hu12, I went ahead and moved the discussion of Interest Conflict into the Discussion Page which seemed like a more appropriate place. Thank you for showing an interest in contemporary American poetry and please feel more than welcome to join me in putting up to date pages for authors like Carson Cistulli, Kenneth Koch, David Berman, Peter Orlovsky, ect., cordialement,193.251.43.248 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

... for the star Hu 12. I appreciate your assistance and cooperation in this matter. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Osteoporosis Foundation

Hi there, I sent you an email using the 'E-Mail this user' function, but I thought this might be the better place to contact you. I'm trying to create a page for the International Osteoporosis Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Osteoporosis_Foundation). The page is currently protected and can be edited only by admin, as it seems in 2008 it was created numerous times and then deleted by you for 'repeated recreation of copyright infringement'.

I'm not sure who it was trying to create the page back then, but I'd like to give it another go. And do it right this time. Would appeciate your feedback (and also undeleting the page so it can be fixed).

Thanks Inyon011 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got your email, and apreciate the disclosure. First I would ask you read the folowing;
If you intend to create an article, its best you work on it in your Userspace for review (User_talk:Inyon011/International Osteoporosis Foundation). --Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I really appreciate it. I’ve had a good read through the guidelines you provided and have created a page about the International Osteoporosis Foundation I believe is neutral, not a piece of advertising and is referenced.

I’ve created a page for review as you suggested here (User_talk:Inyon011/International Osteoporosis Foundation).

Would appreciate you reviewing it, and of course giving me any feedback or suggestions you have to make sure this is done right.

Thanks again. Inyon011 (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that being the paid Communications Coordinator for IOF, you do have a conflict of interest, so neutrality cannot be expected. With that stated, the references used seem mostly trivial or incidental coverage by secondary sources, which is not sufficient to establish notability. Nor would press releases. Unfortunatly many of the same similarities exist with your version, the deleted versions[13][14][15][16][17] and with those created on multiple language wiki's during the fist marketing campaign[18][19][20][21]. This gives me serious pause and concern. Unfortunately, the previously created Single purpose accounts for IOF;
Avanleersum (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)
81.63.148.51 (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)
Yayasan Osteoporosis Internasional (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)
Chky munkey (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)
Lmisteli (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)
Their only contributions to Wikipedia are to promote IOF's adgenda also, not wikipedias. Let me ask, You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote the International Osteoporosis Foundation, right?--Hu12 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks again for the quick response. Of course I realise that I am not neutral (which is why I disclosed my occupation). However, I have endeavoured to create a page that is factual. In answer to your question, yes my desire is to improve Wikipedia. I believe Wikipedia would be improved by a page on IOF, as it is notable for being the world’s largest alliance of bone disease-related health professionals and organisations. There are many examples on Wikipedia of similar international health organisations that are notable in their own fields. Sorry, I don’t seem to be able to view the previous deleted versions (and have no knowledge who created them)? I have had a good look at the Wikipedia pages of other health-based NGOs, and made changes so the IOF page is in line with them (I have added peer-reviewed journals published, which many pages seem to do). I guess my question is, what changes could be made (perhaps you could point me towards a good example of a health-NGO page?) to satisfy you that this page is noteable and will be an improvement to Wikipedia? Inyon011 (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biblewalks

Hi, I see that you are removing old refs to Biblewalks: I was actually thinking of asking for a discussion of lifting the ban on this site.

Just for the record: I have nothing to do with the site...I do not know the people behind it, and I disagree about some (quite a lot, in fact,) of the stuff there, however, it *does* have some very useful maps and pictures. Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun and al-Majdal, Tiberias are just two articles I have worked on, and where I thought I would add Biblewalks as an external link...but could not. Perhaps we could take the discussion to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration?

And yeah: I do see that User:Biblewalks did behave in a rather clueless manner when they arrived here, but that does not mean that the site itself is totally useless. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned in the current discussion about it, I'm in agreement with the other Administrators that if a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor, such as yourself, can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source. Wikipedia needs content, not links anyway;). --Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
true, but it is difficult for me to add arial photos of those specific places to wikipedia...unless I hire a plane and start taking pictures :-) Anyway, thanks for the link, I have already gone to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, and asked to get links to those two pages appoved. If that works out, then I´m quite happy with asking for "unblocking" of links on a case-by-case -basis. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Links?

Hi HU12

There is obviously something up with the URLS that you have removed from the Flavivirus page. From just following the links they look fine to me. One of them (ViPR) is funded by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases & National Institutes of Health. For future reference/my editing - how do you know they are spam? Jennifer_Rfm (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jennifer. For viprbrc.org you can tell by the contribs of Special:Contributions/Bpickett. Clear spamming, and does not seem to be have been added for verifying article content. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In the case of the other link, (denguevirusnet.com), you can see from my Spam report, it was a part of a large scale spam campaign involving the same owner adding 4 of his/her sites, en mass, in multiple articles over this and multitude of various language wikis. This site and the adsense related have been blacklisted. However, I added back ViPR. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah- thanks for the clarification and help. Jennifer_Rfm (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy hunting

While you are engaged in your Twickline hunt, bear in mind that he is also closely connected with the website wine-reviews.net. I have just purged the three references that existed to the site but it's worth watching to see whether the site reappears and if so which user is doing it. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is an odd assortment of sites related to this sock account. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Feb_1#Bodhi_linux. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helium.com

Referring to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#helium.com problem, would you help me figure out what went wrong with my combination of blacklist and whitelist entries for helium.com? I blacklisted the site, but tried to whitelist specific pages (such as the home page) and yet I am still able to add any helium.com link to articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commented there.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... replied there, and modified the whitelist. Everything is still being let through. I'm stumped. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

I am proposing to merge these talk pages to Wikipedia:Blocked external links and subpages. The main reason is to remove the implication of "spam" and provide a somewhat more visible and centralized location, and a slightly more sane process. I am contacting you because you are or have been involved with spam blacklisting in the past. Please post any comments you may have at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

Hi. I was approached on IRC by User:Ottermaton asking for help with his block. You blocked him as a sock of User:Twickline. AFter reviewing their edits, I don't think they are the same person. Ottermaton started working the article earlier than Twickline. S/he also used a different capitalization and writing style - where Twickline simply copied/pasted a description, Ottermaton actually seems to have put some work into the article. If you have a moment, could you review their unblock request? Thanks! TNXMan 02:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. thanks for the note..--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost hunting

See IP contributions for ghost hunting advertising. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there were a couple of IP's, one of which was removing a site called ghostsearchuk.co.uk. Interestly both are by "Steve Moyle Web Design". smells a bit like SEO by Steve Moyle. --Hu12 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia user who has published a criticism of WP has been in touch with me about an individual who is seriously inflamed about the title of the page User:Hu12/Jon Dattorro Convex Optimization Spam — which is visible to Google when one searches "JON + DOTTORRO + WIKI"... Basically, the subject of this page, a banned person who promoted his research via WP, feels that the intent of the page is to be found by Google and that its content is defamatory: the subject feels he is many things, but not a "spammer." There are apparently plans for a lawsuit, my source tells me, and he has urged me to take action to remove the threat to WP by having the page in question altered.

I emphasize that I am not making this threat, nor is my source, but rather that it is coming from the original banned subject of the page. I would urge you to retitle or to somehow hide the page from Google. While we Wikipedians understand what a "spammer" is in WP terms, the word has a greater meaning outside the project. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so I would urge you to amend the title of this and similar pages, at a minimum. Best regards. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional page brought to my attention as a potential matter of concern is User:Hu12/Spammers. I would encourage a renaming. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I really need to clean my watchlist so I don't feel the urge to butt in to other people's talk pages.)
This is bizarre. A user subpage clearly represents the personal views and work of that user calling a spade a spade, not Wikipedia taking any position. That someone may disagree with the opinion, claiming the intent is to defame on Google searches, seems pretty shaky. It's no big deal to rename a few pages on WP:NPA compliance grounds, but if it were me I'd ask our Wiki foundation attorney User:Mike Godwin for advice or clarification on the matter. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that's an unusual situation and perhaps without merit, but I'm getting a pretty hard push to address this from my source, as a potential serious issue developing for WP. I am of no particular opinion as whether the complaint has the slightest merit, I pass along the information to others it may concern for what it's worth. Thanks for the advice on contacting Mike Godwin, I shall. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at Mr Godwin's talk page, it seems he recently left the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't know who replaced him but perhaps he might tell you if you write to him. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin has gone (see Signpost article). Do not contact him. My opinion is that we editors should not get involved in debating the merits of legal issues. On a courtesy issue (towards the banned person), I think the next step for anyone wanting to pursue this (if Hu12 is currently away) would be to ask at WP:ANI whether it would be appropriate to add __NOINDEX__ on the specified pages (see Help:Magic words). That should be discussed in terms of courtesy. Anyone wanting to discuss the legal issues should contact WikiMedia (I think at foundation:Contact us). Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in debating the merits either. New General Counsel doesn't take over until 3/7, I think. Searching for a current email address now. I don't think an ANI debate would help much, as that debate would revolve around specific legal issues not answerable by laypeople. Carrite (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The options, as I see them:
  • Wait for Hu12 to return - could be in hours,days, or weeks - no way to tell
  • Post at ANI - although it's not really an ANI type issue
  • Leave a message on Jimbo's talk page - not sure if he would have a response prior to the start of the new General Counsel, but can try.
  • Do nothing
  • Use IAR and BOLD to either add __NOINDEX__ or to rename and/or edit-out problematic content on the page (even with changes, could take quite a while for the Google cache to reset itself).
Personally, I agree with the last option: just add __NOINDEX__, comment-out any problematic text, and rename the page(s). Then leave a courtesy note for Hu12. --- Barek (talk) - 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it makes me uncomfortable, I have done that. My apologies. I have also apprised new counsel Geoff Brigham of the situation. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that case. Philippe (WMF) added the __NOINDEX__, which seems sufficient. Links to evidence of that users own actions on wikipedia, does not defamation make, nor would having said case evidence in my userspace. Based on the history, this would appear more a continued attempt to advance that individuals agenda, rather than anything resembling substance or merit.
  • "...my source tells me, and he has urged me to take action to remove the threat to WP by having the page in question altered"
While I assume your good faith, Carrite, I do question the proxy recrutment means in which this topic has re-emerged. Would tend to think multiple page blankings, edits and moves within anothers userspace a bit rash, and perhaps premature considering its based entirely on some 3rd party "anonymous" hearsay based on a meritless accusation. --Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Glad you're back. First: you personally are in the line of fire in a prospective lawsuit. I do not say this as a threat myself, nor as a threat from my source, but I do say this as a statement of fact. In my judgment, which you may fault, there was a BIG BLP threat which needed immediate remedy. Whereas it is legally difficult for a plaintive to get to the project, it may (or may not) be possible for them to get to you personally. Trust me when I say that I'm trying to look out for you personally here. The attorney of the Wikipedia Foundation has been apprised of the situation and I invite you to contact them for their professional opinion. As for "multiple blankings," your main important page is unharmed save for the removal of one word. If you have difficulty finding it, drop me a line on my own talk page and I will help you to locate it. It is still there. The main thing is to make this page blind to Google search, which I tried to do. I apologize for taking action without you, but I felt time of the essence and did my best for you and the project. Revert my actions if you will. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to contact me off list and I will give you the name of my source and additional information which I do not wish to post publicly. Tim. MutantPop@aol.com. Carrite (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your good faith and concern Carrite and it is appreciated. However, the actions of Jon Dattorro on wikipedia as evidenced by his own edit history, is not a legal or BLP concern. Rather, when a user such as Jon Dattorro, attacks, spams, harasses, threatens both wikipedia and its users on wikipedia, it becomes a most serious concern, as evidenced below;

Unfortunatly the Law Of Unintended Consequences seems to be at play here which is no fault of wikipedia or those administrators who attempted to mitigate the disruption caused by user Dattorro. Based on the history above, this would appear more a continued attempt to advance that individuals agenda, rather than anything resembling legal substance or merit. Pending any additional[27] contact by the WMF, 3rd party "anonymous" hearsay based on a meritless accusation is just that.--Hu12 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny URL

Hi Hu12, I have a question. I see that tinyURLs are blacklisted; I could not find out why, and though there seem to be exceptions, I can't read the code on MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. I have a URL (in Sonja Barend, first item in bibliography) that has square brackets in it (a few German news sites do the same thing) and I thought a tiny URL might save the day. Do you have any advice? Can the specific URL (tinyurl.com/4f6yodl) be allowed? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hu12 is away atm. They're blacklisted because of the high probability of misuse, from hiding spam links to delivering malware. At any rate, it is easy to have a URL that contains square brackets, see Percent-encoding (for example, replace '[' with '%5B'). Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I didn't know that (actually, this was the first time I used it myself). I see you have taken care of the problem--thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam whitelist request

Hello Hu12,
last week, as requested by user Unscintillating, you whitelisted a blog post by Rob Stapleton on the Examiner.com. By coincidence, a couple of days later I came across another post by the same blogger, which I found relevant and tried to refer to, and that is how I discovered this whole business of the Spam whitelist and the fact that the Examiner.com has got a reputation issue regarding spam.
Nevertheless, in my view the post in question is of decent quality and would help improve the article I'm working on (2010 Alaska C-17 crash), so I wonder if my request could be addressed the same way as Unscintillating's one. Cheers.
--Giuliopp (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit backlogged, sorry. See my note posted there. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Kathleen Ngale

Hello Hu12, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kathleen Ngale, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 20:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no axe to grind on this issue; I just want to understand: Why you consider hammerpond.org.uk a spam or conflict of interest link? It doesn't seem to be advertising or promoting anything? Bagunceiro (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary should help answer that question. see also; Special:Contributions/86.177.88.154, WP:ELNO #'s 4 and 11 and whois. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. This account, by adding the same link over and over, appears and based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting that one website. The big picture here shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. The internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a Linkfarm to that content.--Hu12 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Camerapedia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Camerapedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camerapedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Probably none of my business, but you don't think you might have gone in a bit heavy with the "If you continue spamming Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing" bit of this edit? The links had been noticed and removed, I'd explained why they weren't acceptable, the editor said fair enough and they'd stop, and they appeared to have done so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, if there wasn't a Multiple account issue. Multiple account spamming is never a sign of good faith, particularly when there is COI;
Clubstats (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) 11:22, 12 April 2011 new user account
Tom.jamieson (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) 11:10, 12 April 2011 new user account
"This website and its content is copyright of Bobby Sinnet & Thomas Jamieson - © Bobby Sinnet & Thomas Jamieson 2011 - 2011 . "
the irangers site was Registered recently on: 25-Feb-2011, I had to cleanup the other accounts promotuinal addition. spam case. --Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I tend to find that where an editor reacts the way that this one did, they're more than likely acting through inexperience rather than malice. Had a quick glance at your spam case: I'm not acquainted with Scottish football sites in general, but the url hibernianfc.co.uk is the official website of the Scottish Premier League club Hibernian F.C.. Have you notified Jmorrison230582 that he's mentioned in the spam case? he's an experienced and knowledgeable editor in the field of Scottish football, so may be able to help. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Project Syndicate

I removed the prod tag you placed on Project Syndicate, as it was discussed at AfD in 2006 and therefore is ineligible for prod. Compliance with process is the only reason I did this; do not interpret it as my endorsement for keeping the article. I have no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kuyabribri--Hu12 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam-blacklist

Please visit the Spam-blacklist talk page and check my request for removal of a web site from the spam black list.
Yours, Megaidler (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit again the Spam-blacklist talk page. Megaidler (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fi.wikipedia

Hey Hu12, just wanted to notify you that someone's reported you on fi.wikipedia's administrator noticeboard for "vandalism". Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Can you recomend any good translaters? I tried to find the right edit summary like this, so there would be no confusion. oh well.--Hu12 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did my best, hope it helps explaine..--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, I think the matter has been resolved. Don't worry, generally fi.wiki users understand English just fine (and those who don't can always ask someone who does). Jafeluv (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12. Thanks for the message - a tad disappointed in truth, I added links in the best interest of the Everton Football Club community. For a few of the clubs players, I linked to a website (of which I'm not affiliated with, other than being a visitor) which archives related news to each player. It's very useful. So if I search Phil Jagielka on Wikipedia, an external link to http://www.grandoldteam.com/club/squad/12 would then show his related news articles. I didn't see a problem, having read the guide? But hey, just a shame. (Evertonfan88 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately fansites are Links normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Your contributions to wikipedia under Evertonfan88 and IP 82.42.203.109, consist entirely of adding external links to grandoldteam.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be grandoldteam.com related only. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote grandoldteam.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about a users edits with possible COI

Hi, I've just become aware of a COI issue with the Wikipedia entries I have been adding on behalf of Steve (my name is Dwayne Smith and I'm an employee of Steve Parish Publishing). My apologies for this, I've been trying to read as much as I can about contributing to Wiki but there's just so much to get through (this morning I realised there was a better way to cite material and I've been fixing things since). Is there a way that Steve can contribute the extensive information his publishing company has collected over the past 20 years without causing offense? Thanks for your help. Steve Parish (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Steve Parish Publishing . Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. In addition, Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding Steve Parish Publishing WP:REFSPAM and is considered spamming. No matter how well intentioned, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote Steve Parish Publishing . Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines including wikipedias fundamental principle in keeping a Neutral point of view. --Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State legislative assembly election, 2011

Why you edited sops to shops in Kerala State legislative assembly election, 2011 article ?. I meant sops only, not shops.
sop: a conciliatory or propitiatory bribe, gift, or gesture


Anish Viswa 15:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My error. We could capitalize it SOP, might avoid future spelling edits. thanks for the note. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for blacklisting destination4u.net. tourattract.com and world-places.net seem to be its clones, and they are also a source of spam for Wikipedia. I presented them upon http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist#destination4u.net_related but User:Grizijako has disruptively edited their URLs. I undid his disruptive edit and reported him/her as a vandal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bird intelligence website

User:Auralgo has added a number of external links to a website about bird intelligence, and you may wish to discuss these edits with him; see contributions Snowman (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this has been going on for a while. I see no other edits (including the three related IP's) other than adding his two adsense related sites. See Spam report. Level three warning given. thanks Snowmanradio--Hu12 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actiTIME page deletion - Please restore

~~ Alyadem Could you please explain why the actiTIME page was deleted? I have consulted a number of Wiki admins and they even changed it so to comply with the rules, the last thing was needed is the citation. So I added appropriate links and citations. It has been here for about a year. If you refer to the deletion 2007 - this is not biased - there was another article with another text (that didn't comply with Wiki rules). The article 2010 complied with the rules. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyadem (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whie I did reference the other article, and the previous AFD discussion in the "also" section, the deletion was for advertising or promotion. It does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Please feel free to request a Deletion Review, however your contributions to wikipedia, consist entirely of promoting ActiTIME. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be ActiTIME related only. Please do not continue to create articles about your own products on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote ActiTIME right? --Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alyadem Then I guess every page of the software from the list Comparison_of_time_tracking_software should be deleted as well. If I add history note and company information will it still be promo article? As I didn't have intention advertise the product- just to provide people with the information. Thanks in advance! —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

Da Vinci Surgical System

Hello. I have cancelled your removal of the article, making it a redirect, because I am pretty sure there is enough things to say on the subject to have a separate article. Kind regards, Freewol (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalusa_(language)

Hi, I marked Kalusa_(language) for deletion a while ago, and while the time for repairing the article has expired, it seems to have been forgotten and I was hoping to call attention to it. Og of Bashan (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalusa (language), in hopes that wider consensus can determine its notability for inclusion. Thanks for the note.--Hu12 (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of Arya Samaj

I just suggested a merger from Principles of Arya Samaj to Arya Samaj. FYI. Talk:Arya_Samaj#Merger Proposal Runningya (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Did I do something wrong? Can I not provide links? Sorry, I'm new to this. Architectcheck (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links to archdaily.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be archdaily.com related only. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote archdaily.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited some other articles as well, but as a whole, you're right - mostly archdaily related. It's my go-to resource for news on the subject and I noticed that other articles had external links to interviews, which was what I was trying to provide in my own additions. If I went about it in the wrong way, I apologize, I'm new to this place. How should I move forward? I am trying to contribute valuable content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architectcheck (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs content not links. Here are some Wikipedia rules:

Few people will edit tendentiously or argue ad nauseum topics in which they have no connection--Hu12 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reverted two of your edits

Hello Hu12,

Not to bite your nose off, but I believe you may have jumped the gun in your reverting two edits by user User:Tommyallen789 (no doubt in good faith), and have reverted your reversions, as his edit's were not advertising, as you believed them to be. They were to the articles Oenothera biennis and Stinging nettle.

  • Please go to NatureManitoba.ca's  'about us' page, and you will find the following passage:
' Nature Manitoba is a not-for-profit organization that was founded in 1920 as the Natural History Society of Manitoba (later known as the Manitoba Naturalists Society), "for the popular and scientific study of nature" '
  • Next, link to Yellow Evening Primrose (PDF), and Stinging Nettle (PDF), where you will find information (especially botanical diagnostic pictures) of the plants in question that are not yet covered, nor could they be easily covered as well, by their corresponding articles on Wikipedia.
  • Finally, please take a look at Wikipedia's What should be linked and read item 3., which states:
    • 3. "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

I feel that, clearly, the information user Tommyallen789 added would not fall under the rubric of advertising, and were good faith additions of legitimate information to the encyclopedia. The diagnostic pictures they provide are of a excellent quality. And until such information can be added and incorporated into these two articles, the links have a place on their respective pages.

In addition, use in Wikipedia's botanical articles of the sort of PDF's in question are common practice, though more often under the heading of references. They would therefore be appropriate in that context as well.

If you find reasons to disagree with me, I will watch here for your response. Respectfully, Hamamelis (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, however, Wikipedia is not a repository for links. Also, it doesn't matter--being a not for proffit/noncommercial (etc.), it doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true (see;SPAM and External link spamming). Additionally Tommyallen789 (talk · contribs) is the " Newsletter Editor & Communications Coordinator at Nature Manitoba[28]", which is a direct violation of the following Wikipedia guidelines; Advertising and conflicts of interest, Conflict of interest, Editors who have a conflict of interest,Accounts used for promotion, Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption, Persistent spamming. Clearly this account appears to be, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting "naturemanitoba.ca" in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points: Tommy's behavior is in error. It is unfortunate, because the two PDFs are actually very good. I wasn't saying a dot org is exempt, just that the organization wasn't in existence to profit financially (unless they are fronting and actually not de facto a nfp, but I would assume they are what they say they are, just that one member of their staff is a bit pushy). I will understand if you decide you want to re-revert my reversion of your reverts (inhale) so as not to reward Mr. Allen's bad behavior. But I will leave that up to you. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added those links back to the plant articles, because they really are extraordinary resources for people interested in learning more about those specific plants. They are head and shoulders above 99% of plant article external links, and are a real service to the Wikipedia reader, who we should be putting first. I put a note on User:Tommyallen789's talk page, pointing out that he has a conflict of interest, and should not add any more links, but should follow policy and propose it on the talk page (or to myself, if he would like). We certainly don't want to encourage spam, but we do want to add resources that help our readers as much as those linked articles do. I rarely add such links to articles, as my standards are typically too high, but these are a legitimate resource. First Light (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re External links added by User Pandionaus. The user has been advised about external links on 20 April 2010 on his talk page. I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asside from spam, user clearly has a conflict of interest "The primary aim of my website... "[29], and appears to be added for promotional purposes and sell his bird images (birdway.com.au/printpurchases.htm).
Accounts
Pandionaus (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)
Wikipedia is not a vehicle to sell images. I've removed them.--Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Spam in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spam for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for your opinion on this set of contributions. The user was advised about EL on 3 July 2011. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a report here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#American_Bird_Conservancy_COI_spam
Seems there is a long term pattern, and previous blocks related to this organization. as for the newest account (Amyatabc), Ive blocked per:
--Hu12 (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12: I noted your deletion of the American Bird Conservancy external link from the Environmental impact of wind power article and left a comment for you on its discussion page. As mentioned there, I see no WP:COI in an ornithologist providing a link to a policy page related to avoiding bird strikes by wind turbines. The website itself is an official site for a non-profit group which deals with environmental matters related to birds. This is not spam or opinion pushing, and even a series of links in related bird articles wouldn't constitute a disruption to our project, IMHO. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
replied--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBL removal

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is vbs.tv. Thank you. —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Allan Coe and Johnny Rebel edits by various IPs

I'm hoping you can possibly help with an issue I brought up at User talk:Calmer Waters#David Allan Coe and Johnny Rebel. An anonymous editor I believe is intentionally trying to get the official web site of David Allan Coe (http://www.officialdavidallancoe.com) blacklisted in order to substitute a fan site http://www.davidallencoe.com. See this edit. You had warned this IP User_talk:72.171.0.139#Additions of http:.//.officialdavidallancoe.com for the adding the link when above the editor is removing the link. Frankly I'm not sure the editor is quite balanced as the strategy appears to be to add the official link to Johnny Rebel to get it blacklisted while removing it from David Allan Coe and substituting the fan site. Thanks, GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Library Sound Archive revert

Hi, today you reverted links to British Library audio recordings from sound archives of Plath, Browning, Rossetti and others. I was curious as to your motive. They are not "advertising or inappropriate external links" and seem strong and valuable to add, I think the product of the on-going GLAM/British Library collaboration which is working to offer more WP links to archive. A group is regularly meeting with the Library to open up public access. I understand that Kadams Adams' adding so many may have set alarm bells going, but I think that closer investigation of the links themselves would show their worth. Thanks Span (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedas spam filter caught Special:Contributions/Kadams87 mass spamming the project, I reverted per Wikipedia:SPAM#External_link_spamming and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. It doesn't matter if they might "show their worth" (etc.) it doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. see WP:NOT and WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Go ahead and add that one back to Robert Browning. thanks;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what 'spam' is in this context, given that Wikipedia has set up a project with the British Library to be able to link their sound files to our articles. Your sense of 'Spam' here seems to mean adding by rote or adding to too many articles, rather than any reflection on content. WP:SPAM says spam is "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website". I don't believe this is the case in this situation. Unusually, I believe that in this case all the links connect to rare sound archive material that is not available elsewhere. The British Library has one of the world's most extensive literary, publicly funded collections of historical document. Span (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links.. This is the essense of spamming. Wikipedia is Not a repository of Links. WP:NOT is a community agreed upon standard that all wikipedian should follow, particularly WP:SPA accounts demonstrate eggregiously, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the British Library in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption (Persistent spamming)--Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CRARG

Thanks for taking care of this [http: //www.crarg.org/ one linkspam] reinserted by socks in so many articles at once. I was wondering if the blacklisting of the actual link would be equally appropriate, but you probably know better how to deal with this sort of thing. — LMK3 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WikiProject Spam report, continued multiple account spamming, despite warnings; So Per;
This site has been blocked--Hu12 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

d-addicts.com

Hi Hu12. My actual intention is to request Wikipedia to remove all existing d-addicts.com links from its pages and include d-addicts.com in the Wikipedia spam blacklist. I just realized I might have made an error. I was supposed to state my request within the "Proposed additions" section instead of the "Proposed removals" section at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, am I right? --Jofien (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12. I've verified using my own sandbox that d-addicts.com was already blacklisted. I've deleted my request on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist page to avoid any further misunderstanding. Please delete you reply as well. Very sorry for any inconvenience caused. As I've mentioned, d-addicts.com is involved in copyright infringement of many Asian dramas. May I know whether the Wikipedia server can be configured to delete or block all the existing, old d-addicts.com links indicated on this page? --Jofien (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is black listed @ meta. Ive readded your request and closed it for the "record". no worries. All current links that reside on the server will not effect editing or saving a page, however it does block the addition of new links, or the re-addition of of links that get removed. thanks for your time in this matter....--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UGRB

Here's another one of those. Please take a look at a linkspam involving speedily deteted Ukrainian Genealogical Research Bureau and the repeated addition of external link to that (clearly commercial) website by a non-autoconfirmed account: Markig1 (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance. —LMK3 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made a report here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Ukrainian_Genealogical_Research_Bureau. Looks as if there was some cross language spamming also. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The No Spam Barnstar
Thank you so much for reverting all that nonsense from Tony4b! Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&oldid=446845941"