User talk:Hu12/Archive2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spamstar

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Hu12 for ferocity in fighting spam on Wikipedia

--A. B. 04:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)--A. B. 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks A. B.! Guess we should give something back to the spammers also, being that we take so much away from them... here it goes...Spicy Spam Kabobs - Serve with hot cooked rice. It may not be much, but hey, at least its something. Hu12 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I was just about to make a decision in the article Shipping when you deleted the linkfarm. One of my new projects will be to remove linkspam as best I can. I submitted my first AfD last week and the result was Delete, so I'm encouraged that we can improve the quality of Wikipedia sometimes by reducing its quantity. MKoltnow 03:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. Congrats on the AfD, keeping the bad out. I've seen those "lists" on other articles as well, they never seem to be helpful except to the marketeers. Policy reads, Wikipedia is not a repository for lists, directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to companies, company lists, products, external links, or any other material as well. If you interested in fighting spam take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, we could use another set of gloves in the fight.. Hu12 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my thanks for your efforts in removing spam from Wikipedia, in this case one of the automotive pages I've been working on. I was going to investigate the link site myself... the fact they called the link Giuelietta Official Specifications (wrong spelling of Giulietta), should have given the game away, but I see you've already removed it. Thanks again. --Xagent86 08:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your very welcome. Interestingly enough, that spam campaign was spread over 74 different automotive articles, major abuse of Wikipedia. Hu12 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deletion of ANZIIF

Hu12 - I dispute your decision to delete the page "ANZIIF". There is a similar page titled "FINSIA" who are an organisation much the same as us. As their page is fine, I copied EXACTLY their page and changed it where appropriate to ANZIIF. You then deleted our page but not theirs. Why?

I also dispute that ANZIIF are a "non-notable group". ANZIIF has a 120+ year history as a professional organisation and has over 12,000 members in over 80 countries.

Please explain why you keep deleting ANZIIF but not FINSIA. Jclapham 06:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Jclapham, Hu12's actions regarding pages other than your own are mostly irrelevant. There could be a lot of reasons why your page is affected but not others. Please don't assume Hu12 is being unfair to you solely on the basis of his taking no action with regard to another page similar to yours. Now I have not seen your page, but two wrongs don't make a right. So my suggestion is to find more substantive reasons to argue on behalf of your page. I could try to help but I haven't read your page and I'm not likely to get further involved other than this message to try to help you. Just don't take things personally, read the wiki policies applicable, argue how you think they apply, and try to get others to support your position. Based on your description of your organization here, it sounds like it could be encyclopedic, so just walk within wiki policy and you should be okay. Good luck.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate the pointer. I presumed that consistency would be applied to an encuclopaedic resource as a matter of course, though the entity of the wiki beast could make this more difficult. Thanks again for the pointer, I'll arm myself with a policy brief and put my case in stronger terms and with documented support. Cheers. Jclapham 09:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and is not for advertising. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is correct in that using that Strawman Argument against FINSIA to defend your position to include ANZIIF on wikipedia, does not change the fact that it fails WP:CORP. Cite WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Creating the same article repeatidly (total 5 times) after being notified of its proposed deletion an the reasons, is spam. Here is the ANZIIF Deletion log for your review, showing the deleting admin. Refrain from recreating it untill you review Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion_review. Hu12 10:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, being a new contributor to Wiki, I recreated the article (with different content each time) thinking a 'bot' had deleted it. I was unaware of all the policies and procedure and will endeavour to familiarise myself with them before getting an ANZIIF page back up and one that meets guidelines.

That being said, my point still stands. Ii find it both humourous and frustrating that two articles can be almost identical in format yet one is deleted for breaching guidelines while another is not - it amuses me that an encyclopaedic resource can be so inconsistent.

Nevertheless, I will read all of your policies and I will write a page that is reference only. I would presume that you will again assist me in highlighting where I err.

Cheers. Jclapham 10:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jclapham, really try to relax and enjoy Wikipedia. You said "it amuses me that an encyclopaedic resource can be so inconsistent." As you work here you will understand that this is not some huge web site with one consistent overseer, overseeing that everything is internally consistent. Rather its hundreds of thousands of people working together in bits and pieces. Hence things can be appear exactly as you describe. In fact, they are as you described! But that's Wikipedia. So don't let it bother and try to work within the system. Pretty soon you be giving others similar advice like you getting here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LAEC - great advice and much appreciated. Thanks for the guidance and support - you're a gem. Jclapham 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a link

Respected Sir, First of all,I am new to the Wikipedia community,so kindly forgive me if I am unaware of exactly what I am doing. I have been a user of Wikipedia for a long time,so I decided to help them if they need it.I joined,however,you posted that i had put on a few links on "Mumbai" and "Guwahati".Funniest part is-I haven't made any changes.My account might have been hacked into(I am unsure,if such instances have happened before,please let me know).I know little about cities,I joined only to authenticate any computer games related articles. I hope that you can convey this to higher authorities.Also,the inconvenience is regretted. Kuldip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krori (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Your most likely not hacked. Wikipedia can be edited by any one with an IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. Now that you have created an account and user name it should avoid confusion with other anonymous users on that IP adress in the future. disregard the notices'. Hu12 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion to redirect

I am the administrator looking at it. In deciding what to do with the article I have decided to redirect. Do you have a reason to object to this decision?Geni 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam reports to WP:AIV

I want to thank you for your vigilance in removing spam links (I've seen you before on many articles). I wanted to leave you a note because I removed the recent spam reports that you left on WP:AIV because the spamming had occurred several days ago. You should only report spamming that is currently in progress. You might look into Talk:Spam blacklist if you see a pattern of certain sites always being spammed, because they can be added to the spam blacklist. -- Gogo Dodo 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Will do.. I am watchng those accounts and will report only when/if the become currenty active. Thanks for the hard work and effort. --Hu12 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81.155.178.248

81.155.178.248 removed your warning from his page. I reverted him but he keeps reverting back.BooyakaDell 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up. vandal 81.155.178.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been reported with a 3RR

No problem, although they just reverted your edits again.BooyakaDell 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that users are entitled to remove warnings from their talk page. BooyakaDell is just as in the wrong here as the anon.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

That was an edit conflict. I didn't realize you'd already replaced the talk page w/ a welcome message when I posted. Sorry about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. thought that atleast i could do after the misunderstanding is welcome him here--Hu12 00:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Agree

Seems little point continuing a conversion on the wikispam page when I cannot find a single point of disagreement to discuss! As a result of your intervention someone who was spamming lots of pages is now in dialogue with the community and I hope will contribute something. This is all to be admired. You did the right thing! --BozMo talk 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree compleatly, and most importantly that he now has a dialogue with the community. I do like his site, seen plenty of bad ones and hope he does become a contributing editor and not just dissapear in the comming weeks. we'll see.--Hu12 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major article Spam

I have removed all the links to amazon. If you find anymore improper links please let me know. And Thanks for the catch

Please clarify these 2 points for me!

In the list of articles you mention here: [1]

you mention Louis Lukac. I have never edited this article!

You also say "same format"

Edward Lampert
What do you mean for this article ??

The reason I did this is because the amazon link goes to the Search Inside function of this particular bookseller this is where editors can actually read the page of the book where the reference is made!
Occasionally a link to Amazon or some other site is provided as a convenience when the text being referred to is actually available on the site through something called Amazon's "Look in side" feature.

I can link it to Google Book Search as well, but google asks you to register before allowing you to read that particular page.

Thank you
Trade2tradewell 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the amazon links. Do not feel this is about one editor, ie. the Louis Lukac article, its about notability. Content guidelines for the articles apply regardless of the good/bad faith of their authors. Edward Lampert however is notable, and should not be on the list, I'll remove it. There is a notability problem if there is no more content than just being mentioned in a book. The amount of promotion for those books in each of the bio's along with little encyclopedic content is a problem. consider engaging in dialog over at WikiProject Spam about the reasons for these articles.--Hu12 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

images

I didn't place CSD on any images, and I only deleted one or two that have just been created. It's pretty funny that you remind me that Wikipedia is not censored, when another user complained because I didn't help him create decency on Wikipedia. But I agree with you, Wikipedia should not be censored. Academic Challenger 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response was to Goluboi pider, sorry should have addressed him correctly. The csd's seem to "faith" motivated, nothing wrong with that, however the images are done in a proffesional manner and suitable to the articles they are in.--Hu12 08:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic vandalism to William's User and Talkpages

I have put a warning on the first vandal's page. If he does it again, just report him/her to WP:AIV. Somehow I think either Taylor Kitsch or Steven Strait is being told to vandalize William's page at the behest of Jeff Hardy or even Bam Margera, but now I'm having second thoughts about that being stupid to think. You and William should be able to get peace, and for that vandal you warned, inform it firmly before you report it to WP:AIV as explained earlier. I also thought about protecting his User and Talkpages. Keep up the good work. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 13:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm suprised William hasn't requested semi-protection. --Hu12 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari linkspam

I haven't finished going through the rest of the page histories, but it looks to me like the anon was actually doing some good -- carsfromitaly.com is a broken site, and the link (at least on Ferrari 308 GTB) was being used as a reference and had been in place for a long time. I've reverted that removal, and I'd ask for your help going through the rest of the anon's contributions to ensure the ones that were deleted were really linkspam.--chris.lawson 15:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree. For example this link which you resored, is low content page with links to ebay, amazon.com, adsense, screensavers, walpapers and a section with stuffed with keywords. Clearly fails the External links policy. Just because it is in a citation format does not mean it was citing any thing. Besides, the difference between a .com and a .net is miles from the same link. Here is internet archive version of the carsfromitaly.com from may 06[2]. It was a cleaver attempt to subvert the spam policies, by vandalizing an existing link hidden within "cite" tags, and campaign spamming other articles to every section within carsfromitaly.net.--Hu12 16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the specific model pages there? I don't like the way the site uses JS to prevent deep-linking, but there's a bunch of really good information on there, and well-established Wikipedians thought it fit to link in most cases. (There were several instances where the anon merely added an external link to the front page of the site, and I left those reverted as they did indeed seem like linkspam.) My point is, please be careful in blanket accusing someone of a linkspam campaign when something like 50% of the supposed spam edits were simply fixing an external link that an established editor had added to the article.

Your May '06 link is too late. Step back to January or so and you'll see what the real site was: January version.--chris.lawson 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions 82.44.132.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Carsfromitaly.net links residing on Wikipedia link search results

24 wide-scale link edits/additions in less than half hour is Spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. see External link spamming. Even more obvious evidence of spam, for example, is this single low-content link (which I profiled above) is spread over 11 (eleven) different Ferrari Articles. There are certain stylistic behaviors that will trigger the "spam" radar, such as "Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site" or 'spewing external links to a Web site over many articles" cite How not to be a spammer. These were obviously added and inteded to promote the site, It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links to carsfromitaly.net on articles related to each topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. These are well-established guidelines --Hu12 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between fixing broken references and link-spamming. The ones I had a problem with were the ones where established Wikipedians had added the links, as references, and you blanket-removed them simply because an anon came along, fixed the links, and added a handful more. As long as you're more careful in the future, we're done here.--chris.lawson 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for articles apply regardless of the good or bad faith additions of established Wikipedians . Here is the established method of the origional addition to Wikipedia. 20 Articles spammed in less than a half hour with the same indiscriminate reference. I would think a concerned editor such as your self would notice this.

{{Web reference | title=The Ferrari Pages | work=Cars From Italy | URL=http://www.carsfromitaly.com/ferrari/index.html | date=November 16 | year=2004}}

16:35, 27 February 2005 [3] Ferrari 166 S (References)

16:33, 27 February 2005 [4] Ferrari F50 (References)

16:32, 27 February 2005 [5] Ferrari America (References)

16:31, 27 February 2005 [6] Ferrari F40 (References)

16:30, 27 February 2005 [7] Ferrari 250 (References)

16:29, 27 February 2005 [8] Ferrari GTO (References)

16:28, 27 February 2005 [9] m Ferrari 250 GTO (References)

16:27, 27 February 2005 [10] Mazda Cosmo (→References)

16:27, 27 February 2005 [11] Ferrari Testarossa (References)

16:26, 27 February 2005 [12] Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer (References)

16:24, 27 February 2005 [13] Ferrari Mondial (References)

16:23, 27 February 2005 [14] Ferrari GT4 (References)

16:21, 27 February 2005 [15] Ferrari 400 (References)

16:20, 27 February 2005 [16] Ferrari 275 (References)

16:18, 27 February 2005 [17] Ferrari Daytona (References)

16:16, 27 February 2005 [18] Ferrari F355 (References)

16:15, 27 February 2005 [19] Ferrari 348 (References)

16:13, 27 February 2005 [20] Ferrari 308 GTB (References)

16:11, 27 February 2005 [21] Fiat Dino (References)

16:09, 27 February 2005 [22] Dino (car) (References)

This type of indiscriminate referencing is unacceptable --Hu12 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever stop to think that the fact that no one removed it between February of '05 and December of '06 meant that people may actually have found the link to be useful? WP:SPAM does not require that all links to a spammed site be removed if the site is otherwise appropriate for the page.--chris.lawson 14:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of its removal (inaction) is certainly not a barometer of its usefulness or appropriateness, rather its the wide-scale external link linkspamming (action) of its addition to Wikipedia that shows its non-usefulness. WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming states; "...in most cases result in all of them being removed", based on the low quality nature of this link...this would be most cases. The pattern of misuse, Abuse and inappropriate use of cite tags is evident. Citation tags are not immune to WP:EL or WP:SPAM.--Hu12 13:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Davis

You deleted the redirect from this page, then put it up for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was empty. This isn't acceptable, I'm afraid. If you think that a redirect should be deleted, please put it up for deletion in the correct way (see How to list a redirect for deletion). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold off till redirect article has been removed. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nike_Davis --Hu12 14:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather hope that the article will stay; the subject is clearly notable, as quick Google plainly shows. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squidoo passed an AfD with Keep

Squidoo passed an AfD with a Keep. It is not a candidate for Speedy deltion. The article is more than a year old, and it is an exaggeration to say it is advertising. Note: I have no participation in Squidoo. External links in other articles to Squidoo is a separate issue. Hu 15:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however i did modify the links in the Squidoo article to allow for future editing. Ok, just saw your cleanup edits.--Hu12 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squidoo blacklisted?

This is in reference to the edit you made to the Baltimore's marching ravens page. I noticed you removed the link to the BMR Squidoo page, calling it "blacklisted." Looking at your contributions page, I see you've done the same to many other Wikipedia pages. If Wikipedia does in fact ban external links to Squidoo, then please link me to that information. Until then, I'm going to put the link to the Squidoo page back in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgaffney (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 December 2006.

Yes, Squidoo is a blacklisted url, if you attempt to reinsert it you will get a message such as this;

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

If the a blacklisted url were to have remained on the page, any future attempt to edit the article would have been met with the same warning.--Hu12 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communications in Lebanon

Would you like to revisit this edit? JonHarder ^talk 21:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that happened during that edit, but I'll definitely revert it, thanks JH--Hu12 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolfing

Please share the policy behind this. " !-- ATTENTION! Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed. --"

To me, with my small knowledge of policies, this notice appears rude, an intrusion on editors rights and speaks of arbitary reverting. I am open to being educated. SmithBlue 01:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of that template is to discourage spammers and inexperienced Wikipedians from adding links normally to be avoided. It does not modify the Wikipedia:External links guideline and does not apply to "What should be linked to" links. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam wants to encourage sincere links and discourage people whose sole intention is self-promotion.--Hu12 02:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Rolfing were a great model of cleaning away trash - something I needed to see. I think you are doing a fine job. Please dont stop. And I think you could make Wikipedia a little more civil by modifying, "Undiscussed links will be removed". SmithBlue 09:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the last part of the comment could be stated better feel free to modify it apropriatly. much obliged to help--Hu12 17:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neat... new toys!

I got your invitation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, and my first thought was, "I already spend lots of time removing spam from recent changes. Why do I need a WikiProject?" Then I noticed the Search Web Links tool... neato! I had no idea that Wikipedia could do that. Thanks for the link. -FisherQueen 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, hopefuly there will be more tools down the road as discussed on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#New_tool_concept--Hu12 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider westcoastpoppin.com

I appologize for not understanding the system that wikipedia runs on, I am very new to this and am currently reading up on how to contribute my information for the category "Popping". Please re-consider the website www.westcoastpoppin.com for it contains many valuable information about history and interviews with pioneers of this dance culture. I was in no way trying to spam or abuse the wikipedia system, please accept my appology~ How should I go about getting the website information on this page? Please let me know, this web site holds much value in contribution for the scene, thank you~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sohtanaka (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 December 2006.

List of ZX Spectrum clones

I really don't know where to start with this one, but I'll have a go.

Your arguments for deletion appear to be confusing two things: firstly, your initial argument that the current content of List of ZX Spectrum clones does not meet the requirements of WP:NOT. Nobody is arguing that, but you at no stage presented a reason why this is a reason for deletion, as opposed to cleanup, as both I and Uncle G noted. When this was pointed out, you changed your argument to one that the article itself should not be on Wikipedia, by arguing the list is redundant with the category. While this would be a valid reason for deletion, the argument itself is in fact simply wrong. As noted at WP:CLS, "[Categories, lists and series boxes] should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." Or are you seriously suggesting that List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom should be deleted just because Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom exists?
I find your assertion that I have somehow "forfitted" my right to cleanup the article because I made a minor edit on it a year ago at best a violation of WP:AGF: I've said that I'll clean the article up, so please assume that I will do until such point as it becomes obvious that I won't. I really don't think that being away for a week over the Christmas period is an unreasonable thing for an editor to do.
You have still not provided a reason why you removed the {{cleanup}} tag from the article. In what way did that action improve Wikipedia? --Pak21 14:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus, so as you know the article was not deleted. As was stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZX Spectrum clones Replacing a prod tag with a {{cleanup}} tag without any corrective actions, does not prevent an AfD nomination. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, especialy with "List Of..." type articles, as they are Listcrufty, and of interest to a very limited number of people. Consensus needs to be made in order to improve the quality of content for the larger readership, not just those few who have a specific interest in keeping a particular lists. After all Category:ZX Spectrum clones is self-maintaining, I don't see how a duplicate in article form which cannot be expanded, improves Wikipedia. "List of.." type articles are sufficiently controversial to merit AfD nominations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock photography archives). --Hu12 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order... 1) Nobody is saying that replacing {{prod}} with {{cleanup}} prevents an AfD nomination, but why did you remove the cleanup tag? 2) The article can (and already has) been improved. I will do the unofficial clones section when I get more time. 3) "List of.." type articles with encyclopedic content get strong keep "votes" at AfD (shall we look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of backup software)? The point here is that you seem to be nominating any list article you see for deletion, without consideration as to whether the article can be improved or not. Further noting your mass nomination of traders for deletion of which almost all were kept, can I suggest you reconsider your nominations in future? --Pak21 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, however I fail to see the need to continue matters such as this beyond the origional Afd discussion. Not sure what you personal interest is in me and WikiProject Spam matters are, but I don't interperate a decision to keep an article i've nominated for deletion as a bad thing or take the results personaly. I suggest not taking this matter personaly.--Hu12 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Happy New Year to you too! Although for me, midnight doesn't come until a little more than 9 hours after this post. :-( --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Wiggles Page

I was contributing some information on the MR.WIggles page and since Im a newb to wikipedia, I accidently deleted one of the refferences (since i was trying to add one) I appologize!! How do I bring back that old link "Latin rap interview with mrwiggles" and also add the westcoast popping interview? I appologize again for the inconvenience! Im doing the best I can~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sohtanaka (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 January 2007.

I Added and fixed the ref. cited Westcoastpoppin's interview with Mr.Wiggles. Appreciate the post.--Hu12 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinned

A user called Sinned is going around deleting external links on pages such as Timmins, Ontario and writing in the notes that he's deleting it to help HU12 remove "spam". I just thought you should be aware of this. Also, are there any guidelines that should be adhered to as to the number of external links on an article, and what kind of links could be placed on a page such as the one above. It seemed to be getting pretty link heavy and I agree that for the length of the article, perhaps there were too many. One user has been adding many, many links to the article. Any help you can provide is appreciated. --Renrenren 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no association to me. He spammed a website called powdermill-snowmobile-club.com see User talk:Sinned. guess hes having a tantrum at my expense. Main guidlines for external links are the Spam policy & External links policy and specificaly Links normally to be avoided. Thanks for making me aware, I'll report--Hu12 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open source games

Hi Hu12, could you explain why you reverted the article Open source games back to an redirect? thx -- edit: plz answer at Talk:Open source games--MilesTeg 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reveted it back, however if watch that article closely as it has potential to be a spam trap. as List of open source games already exists--Hu12 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: rvt on Quarter mile

I noticed you removed the link to www.dragtimes.com on the Quarter mile article page. While I am not connected with that website, I am an avid drag racer (in the process of starting Motor Racing:Drag Racing wikiproject) and check that linked resource several times daily. I am not exactly sure what you mean by the spam campaign involving that website (which is owned by a private individual in Florida). I am considering reverting your revert on the grounds that the Quarter mile article referes to drag racing (rather than just a simple distance) and that the link is a valuable resource and follows all guidelines/stipulations set forth by WP:EL. Also, if the link to dragtimes.com is removed wouldn't the link to ls1tech also have to go?

Would like to hear your take on this . . . I will wait before reverting . . . BMan1113VR 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the late reply. if you chose to include it by all means do. It's removal, under the Spam policy was a result of a linkspam campaign for dragtimes.com by 65.13.44.80, see user User talk:65.13.44.80. --Hu12 07:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It is a "legit" site and a very very useful database for both 1/4 and 1/8th mile drag strips and cars (both race cars and street cars). I had a small revert war with another editor, a while ago, over the link (on another drag racing related page). I finally told him to actually take a look at the website, and that ended that argument (he appoligized and actually is now a member of the forum at that website). It is a very good site, and I would not consider it spam on any page that deals with the basics of drag racing (quarter mile, drag strip, time slip, drag racing, etc.). BMan1113VR 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Russell

Hi, just wondering why you want this page(Kris Russell) deleted, I can't find another page on Russell and all the information is accurate. Sokel 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted material WP:CSD#g4 the latest is the 3rd time--Hu12 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit

Hey Hu12, while I agree 3 links is overkill, I really think that one link to the homepage should remain. The site does infringe on a few of the rules here for external links... they sell coins... and they have a forum... however, I think the positives greatly outweigh the few negatives. They have awesome identification and counterfeit detection areas, along with huge galleries of high quality images.

I research ancient coins fairly frequently, and I can tell you without a doubt that this site is one of the top 3 ancient coin sites on the net, arguably the best. Please consider putting a link to the homepage back, as this site would be a great benefit to Wikipedians. Bobby ^{I'm Here, Are You There?} 16:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've replaced one of the links. You may want to edit/revise the link to best suit the article. thanks for the note.--Hu12 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I sent it to the homepage. Thanks. Bobby ^{I'm Here, Are You There?} 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swaddling

"copyedit" doesn't adequately explain your removal of this reference. Can you elaborate? Josh Parris# 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two current references remaining for that single sentence are not media pieces, unlike the one the that was removed, and sufficiently cover the statement;

Recent medical studies showed that swaddling appears to be a positioning technique that can enhance neuromuscular development of the very low birth weight infant and that it might have a role in further lowering SIDS risk

^ Franco P, Scaillet S, Groswasser J, Kahn A., Increased cardiac autonomic responses to auditory challenges in swaddled infants, Sleep, December 2004

^ M.A. Short, J.A. Brooks-Brunn, D.S. Reeves, J. Yeager and J.A. Thorpe., The effect of swaddling versus standard positioning on neuromuscular development in very low birth weight infants, Neonatal Network, 15 (4) p. 25-31, 1996.

--Hu12 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionaly, please do not include links to external websites in your signature see WP:SIG#External_links. FYI --Hu12 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Scilit

Hi Hu12 - I appreciate all your work to build and maintain the integrity of Wikipedia -- I really do -- but I must say that from my vantage point you're coming down too hard on User:Scilit, both in content and in tone. Yes, 130 links added by a single user in a short time should raise flags, but I truly believe they were added in good faith. I'll not invoke the any of the alphabet soup of civility guidelines, but want to encourage you to recognize that there are a lot of pitfalls for newcomers and to be gentle.

FYI: I have no connection with this user other than the fact that I was the one to do the welcoming. Figma 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the note Figma. I assumed the first 50 links were added in good faith, however, when the serial linking continued after notification, it became evident to the contrary, especially on this extreme scale. As search engine optimization becomes more prevalent, many web site operators use Wikipedia to increase the number of inbound links to their sites and use and WP:WPSPAM#Common spammer strawmen arguments for inclusion. I hope to see contributions from this user other than external links.--Hu12 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I don't know what you tried to do here, but you copied in a large chunk of text from 2006, so I reverted your edit. Please try again without pasting 200k of text. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 12:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sure either, was trying to paste an IP here when the browser froze, so I never saw the final edit. I think I also might have been editing a prior revision. any way, the ip 68.162.12.231, seems to already exist. sorry about that thanks for reverting it.--Hu12 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thought it was some kind of accident like that. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 13:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Please send me an e-mail using the "E-mail this user" feature (click here. I'll send something back to you. Cheers, --A. B. ^(talk) 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sent--Hu12 19:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Yoga external links

going to the talk page at WP:EL was an attempt to get advice. Your comment appears to be an attack, I alerted editors at the Yoga article I had sought advise - so do not impute bad faith. Paul foord 11:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Written Communication can many times be taken out of context, or its true intent lost, as they are limited from intonation, inflection and emphasis unlike spoken words. If you felt the comment was criticism, it was advice and should not be attributed to malice or be imputed as bad faith.--Hu12 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, Durova, award Hu12 the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for uncovering an elaborate AdSense spam campaign. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. You've earned this. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly good job! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Hu12 for catching a tricky one. Good job! -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, just amazing! -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks very much! Stop writing such great articles, no one would spam then. haha ;). thanks again, very much!--Hu12 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment

Let me ask a serious question: you don't have any blocks in your log, you're doing a stellar job at countervandalism, and no one with editcountitis is likely to raise a fuss. Has anyone talked to you seriously about getting sysopped? I'd like to have that discussion with you if you're interested. Durova^Charge! 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's follow up on that idea. Please reply at my user talk page. Regards, Durova^Charge! 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your investigation of the AdSense spam got rousing applause from the community. The site is adding new registered accounts these days at a faster rate than it's adding sysops. So I'd like to talk to you. User talk:Durova/Admin is a page I've been growing since I got sysopped. I specialize in tough investigations and several of my cases have gone into arbitration: usually disputes rather than the technical stuff you found. There are plenty of different things for a sysop to do and you don't have to walk across coals like I do, but once in a while you'll get flamed just because you're an admin. I find this stuff interesting and the tools certainly make it easier to help the site run well.

Do you have any questions for me? And is there any reason people would oppose your candidacy? Fire away. :) Durova^Charge! 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I respect the fact you deal with the tough stuff, I certainly understand the time and effort you must put in (considering we're all volunteers). With that said, I enjoy the same. I get flamed quite a bit, usually long-winded straw man arguments, so that isn't too much of a concern. I am not a wordsmith, and with many sysops focused in that area, some may have an issue with that. This would probably be my greatest concern, as I specialize in the Spam area. I'm interested in helping the site run well and assisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam further. Not to clear on the process involved, I do know there is a Q & A but beyond that I would like to know more. --Hu12 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam fighting is valuable work. You've demonstrated you're excellent at it. I'm not sure what you mean about wordsmith. Basically once you get sysopped you have a set of tools and you go around using them where you feel it's needed. Think of it as a doctor getting a license to practice medicine. Some are podiatrists, others are internists, and the medical board would haul you up for review if you committed gross malpractice. I could close deletion discussions if I wanted, but I don't because deletion standards have changed a lot since I was active there.

The flame throwers do add fuel once you have the tools. It took me only ten days to get nominated for Category:Rouge admins. I've got a good flameproof suit and don't care...sometimes it even makes me chuckle although I try to be polite and professional in my responses. Read up on adminship, pose any questions that come to mind, and especially look through some arbitration nominations. I'll make this a standing offer to nominate you (unless some really dreadful surprise emerges). If you've been in any situations that could stand in the way of your nomination, now's a good time to discuss them. Or anything about what the tools are, what lines not to cross, etc. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ment wordsmith reffering to long responses, I tend to be succinct. Haven't been in any situation which would stand in the way of nomination. Read through the process, looks fairly forward. --Hu12 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I go ahead and nominate you then? It'd be my first nomination so I'd have to read up on the process. Might take a day (I'm up to my ears in arbitration and other stuff). Durova^Charge! 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, deal with pressing matters first. I'll accept and be honored to be the first.--Hu12 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hu12 - the page is created. Once you accept and write a statement the ball gets rolling. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ball rolls quickly. I've posted a response to objections just above your edit statistics. Suggest you pledge to be open to recall for six months - I think that would address the worries. Sometimes a would-be sysop with narrow experience rushes into new areas and makes mistakes. I participate at Category:Administrators open to recall and I think it's a good concept in general. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to that. --Hu12 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Spam

heh, actually i added myself to the participants list like 30 min ago; i've been watching the project page for about a month now. yeah, i've been linkspam fighting for a while now, using #wikipedia-spam. there is some pretty cool stuff coming out of the talk channel, a lot of seasoned veterans and bot-workers. statistics and better methods for spam tracking. you should should pop in. anyways, thanks for the invite, the project is a good place. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Rumsey Technical Institute

Just to let you know, I reverted your addition of a speedy deletion tag to James Rumsey Technical Institute, as it seems CSD G4 does not apply in this situation. CSD G4 is only for articles that were previously deleted under AfD. Since it was deleted under CSD, then G4 does not work. However, like NawlinWiki said in his edit summary, this is a college, and it warrants an article on Wikipedia. Nishkid 64 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Note--Hu12 01:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted all the tags you added to the "Operation xxx etc etc" articles. Those are valid TV episodes, and they aren't speedyable. Nishkid 64 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...looks like I'll have to talk with Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He speedied one of the episode articles yesterday. Nishkid 64 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FC Tokyo Competitions Record

I have removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on the above article. Please review the talk page for reasoning why. Was this a mistake nomination? If not, please explain why it was nominated. It is probably best to answer on the article's talk page. Thanks. J Milburn 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered.--Hu12 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your view on this please

I think you are the most likely person left to spot a snag?

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Proposal:_restructure_these_pages.3F--BozMo talk 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC) --BozMo talk 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPSPAM

RE: [23]: Thanks! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Architecture, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

My oppose to your RfA

I am very appreciative of your efforts at fighting spam and vandalism on Wikipedia, and I don't want you to think my oppose vote is in any way indicative of some sort of criticism of that. It's merely I'm concerned at the focus of some admins recently, and I don't have a good handle on how you would deal with disputes involving your powers.

However, I pride myself on not being a jingoistic, non-thinking absolutist. If there's anything you can tell me as to why I should change my vote, I'm certainly willing to listen. Let me know here or on your talk page if that is the case. (And no one can claim you are badgering me if I ask you to badger me. :D ) --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo what she said. Jonathunder 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popups ? (westcoastpoppin.com)

Hi Im very curious as to why the links I provided has been deleted? I have contributed numerous amounts of information regarding popping and there are no popups on the site... Please explain, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohtanaka (talk • contribs)

Didn't we cover this a month ago? on your User_talk:Sohtanaka--Hu12 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TARDIS Hub cite wasn't "sneaky spam"

I added it and I have no connection to the company, I'm simple a Doctor Who fan. I simply cited the source company instead of a review as I think it would stand up more to verifiability.--GracieLizzie 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Thats fine. thanks for the note.--Hu12 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert on my talk page

I appreciate that you caught the {{test4}} put on my page by 61.230.78.175. I guess that was in retaliation for me warning him for his/her vandalism of this anon IP talk page. Thanks again! Regards, Flyguy649 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. cheers--Hu12 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Congratulations! --A. B. ^(talk) 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

You're now an admin, so use the new tools wisely. Think well before pressing the buttons, and read the policies and ask if you are at all unsure. Take into account the comments in your RfA in order to improve as an editor and admin. If you do that I'm confident you'll do well. Again, congrats - Taxman ^Talk 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made it ;) Congratulations! Pea ceNT 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your question on your RFA, if I misread your arguments I apologize. It seemed to me you were justifiying the practice of tagging articles as G4 after a previous speedy deletion (saying that speedy deletion qualifies as "XFD"), not explaining how you might have made a mistake. In any case, congratulations on your successful nomination. -- Renesis (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that.--Hu12 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! May I recommend your fourth admin action be to unprotect your talk page, so anons can contact you? Let me know if you would like any help, or have any questions. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error with Popups

Hello. I'm a bit confused by the thread on Lupon's page. I was hoping that you could clarify for me here. I am also getting the "Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups" in my edit summaries. It looks like there is a fix, but is it only temporary? In other words, do I need to roll back to a prior version and then manually change back to current when the next change is made to the script? I do like that the new version has the repairs for the unicode text and the new previewing when editing features, so I would hate to lose those. I've been making my reverts using manual edits back to old versions and by using the "undo" feature while this is getting fixed. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it may be your browser, unless you upgrade to IE7 or rollback to IE5.5, it won't work poroperly. I made a change to yur monobook.js (see your talk). This should tie you ovr with the old version untill lupin fixes the current update.--Hu12 07:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. FYI, I am already running IE7, but I was still having the issue. I'll keep using it the way you set it up for me until the next update comes out. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simba (APC)

You recently reverted the Simba (APC) article to a previous version which contained multiple paragraphs which had been plagiarized direct from other sources and also contained fictional information. I'm assuming good faith that you simply forgot to read the comment in the history field. --Edward Sandstig 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note was left to this effect on the articles creator talk page.--Hu12 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:202.168.247.6

Please don't copy/paste any URL a spammer has used because it unnecessary clogs up the search results from Special:Linksearch if we may need to clean it up later. Linking the article that was spammed via {{subst:uw-spam1|article}} is enough. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 05:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk.--Hu12 06:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.