User talk:Hu12/Archive5

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.

---

Hi & stuff!

Ok - firstly thanks both for the vote and getting some stuff done on the list, it is great to see some movement there.

However (!) can I get you to take a look at logging. Rather than write it again maybe take a look at the thread here which explains most of it - I have tried to improve the instructions since. It really is important particularly as the list grows. I picked up the background on one appeal on Meta yesterday in minutes to give the link. A. B. then found a whole raft of extra domains to list! You may care to watch this page (kinda watches threads on the whole page) too? If I can explain/help do let me know, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

You just deleted a message from my talk page. Why? Foobaz·o< 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

see User_talk:Tetraminoe#talk_page_spamming--Hu12 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but i can take care of my own talk page. Foobaz·o< 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that your can.--Hu12 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam report

Hi Hu12. I recently made a spam report to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#.blogpost.com. I really think those URLs need to be blacklisted as soon as possible as they are continuously spammed. A new account (Castspell) has been spamming those links and is an obvious sockpuppet of the accounts I made in that report. "Castspell" claims he'll just keep returning under a different IP. So you might you want to blacklist those URLs I gave and the ones shown in his contributions. The name is similar to mine because of trolling (just check the history on Saturday Nights, Sunday Mornings). Thanks. Spellcast 02:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your deletions of external links

I'd like to urge you to be a little more cautious in your deletion of external links. While some of them are questionable links, many are entirely appropriate per WP:EL. | this one, for example. I do not believe these kinds of edits ([1], [2], [3]) are supported by WP:EL. If you would care to discuss the types of links that are appropriate generally, we should do that on the talk page for WP:EL. Thanks, Wikidemo 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam sock message in my talk page?

Hi Hu12:

I noticed that you left a message in my talk area on July 12 -

Spam sock accounts Sparkweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Craigrosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 65.91.82.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) 65.168.148.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) --Hu12 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify the meaning of this message?

It came almost 5 weeks after I had already been contacted and corrected by your fellow editor / contributor Femto; since that time I have not violated any guidelines. In fact, I have not posted any contributions since that time.

If your entry indicates that my account is responsible for any vandalism or other inappropriate behavior, I ask that you remove the message, since my account history clearly shows no vandlism activity.

Thanks - Craigrosa 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links to kqed.org and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be kqed.org related only. 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. Please see the welcome page and Wikipedia:Civility. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote kqed.org right? --Hu12 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the sudden interest in KQED :). I was a little alarmed by all the KQED link removals but I looked at some of your (Hu12) external link work and thought it was fine and fair....I can't speak to Craig Rosa's exact purpose for adding the links but he's a respected member of the real world community who probably has a lot of good stuff to say, probably just doesn't know the ropes around here. KQED, being the local PBS affiliate and the best radio news outlet in town, is a major source of information to people in Northern California. A few of those links were clearly okay, a few on the borderline for relevance and reliability, and a few clearly inappropriate per the guideline on external links (in my opinion of course, which may not be anyone else's). It would be pretty normal for anyone in the region to use KQED as a source or external link as a matter of course. Within the bounds of the conflict of interest and related policies, I would encourage Craig to contribute to Wikipedia, and others to be patient with a Wikipedia newbie He's an IT pro so he should know which end is up. Wikidemo 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He should have learned something since his account creation back in April 07. That is plenty of time to legitamately contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunatly the real purpose, as are the other accounts, are for the sole pupose of promoting KQED. see 65.91.82.62 (registered to KQED Public Radio). 305 Edits on Wikipedia, the first WP:COI edit dates to 19 January 2006^[4]. Using Wikipedia for promotion and advertising is 'never acceptable. Links added by these and other accounts are inappropriate per policies WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI. Understand this is an Global english encyclopedia, not a link farm for a small radio station in Northern California. Myself and others are currently considering a site wide blacklist and Ban on KQED as a resut of the continued long term abuse of this project, and the ovewhelming evidence supporting it.--Hu12 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know something I don't know? It looks to me like this user's problems ended in July. KQED is a very important source and a major California institution, as far as I know the biggest affiliate among all the public radio stations and one of the biggest public television stations in the country, not a "small radio station". It's produced quite a few notable - nationally important, actually - shows and documentaries. That's like blocking the Washington Post. If there's abuse then deal with the abusers rather than cut off an important news source. There are dozens if not hundreds of employees and they may simply be using their company accounts to do good faith edits. If you truly think there is a systemic or organized problem with employees spamming wikipedia I would urge you to contact the station directly and ask them to put out a memo on the subject or clarify their account use policy. I'm happy to do that if you wish. I am about 95% confident that would end the problem on the spot if that's what it is. There's no way station management would condone an attempt to subvert Wikipedia. It may also simply be loyal members of the audience, or simply ordinary good faith editing by the rank and file in the course of editing. Feel free to email me or bring it to my talk page if there's any sensitive information to discuss. Wikidemo 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo and hu12, thank you for being understanding. A handful of well-intentioned external links does not indicate "continued long term abuse." We were just novices in regard to wikipedia, and thought we were doing a good thing by adding the links. Femto made it clear that the best way to contribute is through adding original content. That sounds great. Once we realized we made a mistake, we stopped doing it. We do want to contribute to wikipedia properly; one way we hope to do so is through contributing new original images to articles. But we can't do that if we are blocked. (Also, to clarify - we in no way are responsible for all external links to KQED. As Wikidemo notes, KQED is one of the largest PBS stations in the United States, so it is normal that members of the Wikipedia community would cite KQED as a source, link to it, and update KQED-related entries. For instance, your removal of the link to the Josh Kornbluth blog, noted above, was a legitimate link posted by a member of the public unaffiliated with KQED, and as such, clearly non-promotional in nature). Also, we do need to make some good-faith edits to the overall KQED page, as we have some new shows and some shows listed are no longer on the radio. So, please, let's be civil and allow for newbies to learn, instead of crushing them and embarrassing them publicly. Craigrosa 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigrosa (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your accounts appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting KQED and is in violation of wikipedia policies. The continued long term abuse of this project includes edits that date as far back as 2 years^[5] originating from a KQED Public Radio IP address. This IP alone is responsible for over 305 Edits on Wikipedia. Please don't pretend or act like this is something new.

“ A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict.

COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted.^[6].

” — Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

You've stated in the above post that "we do need to make some good-faith edits to the overall KQED page...". I would strongly suggest against that. Any further violations will result in your account and/or your IP address being permantly blocked from editing Wikipedia. Understand, you have no right to control the content on the KQED page. If you or your orginization wishes to suggest changes to an article, you should do so by using that article's talk page. When making a request please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding. And remember Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world ----Hu12 03:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

HU12, please stop this campaign against KQED. The edits proposed to the KQED page are perfectly appropriate per the WP:COI guideline. An attempt to block them would not stand and would look foolish. You ought to recuse yourself from the matter at this point. You've made some honest mistakes in your interpretation of the matter but at this point you seem to be making unfounded accusations of bad faith, and making a personal issue out of it. Either let them know that you're not going to go after them any further for their edits, or I'll take it to the administrative notice boards.Wikidemo 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are seriously mistaken in your assertion regarding who is operating a campaign. There is supporting evidence of an adjenda on KQED's part and there is obvious evidence of COI edits as is suggested. Perhaps a broader audience in order to review the evidence is whats needed. If they abide by Wikipedia policies i forsee nothing to worry about. conflict of interest guidelines are clear, and explains whats expected. Because there have been many good faith additions by independent established users, it doesn't confer a license for representatives of KQED to WP:SPAM. KQED has been warned many times ([7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]), and have responded([22][23]), evidence they read those warnings and chose to ingnor them. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, its not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. However, links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site is not. see The dark side.----Hu12 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We may want to get some other eyes on this one. I can see that there was clearly a well-intentioned effort by CraigRossa and some colleagues to add links to KQED stories. He admitted as much, and promises he now understands the rules. Calling it "spam" is stretching it because most of the links would have been appropriate but for the conflict of interest. But in any event you and others said they were improper and Craig Rossa seems to have agreed. This is clearly not coming from a single person. KQED is a $50 million+ per year operation with about 250 employees. I don't know if they offer accounts to guests or wifi to the public from their offices. There are clearly different editors who have written in a variety of different voices on different articles from their IP address. It is hard to believe that a large, reputable news organization like that would deliberately try to subvert Wikipedia. It is more reasonable to conclude that these are the occasional acts of individual employees using their accounts. As such it is comparable to edits coming from a university's shared IP address. Perhaps the solution is to block anonymous submissions from that address if there is a persistent problem. But you don't do a long term IP block or put a major news source on blacklist (as some seem to be proposing on the spam project) for that. In any event, it is appropriate for those related to the subject of an article to make clerical updates to the article. If KQED can proceed as any other organization, that's fine. But if people are eager to block them at the slightest opportunity for any further infraction, as you threaten, that's not tenable. There has to be a clean slate. Anything else simply appears vindictive.Wikidemo 06:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very easy to believe that any large(or small), reputable organization would edit Wikipedia articles to their benefit. ExxonMobil, the US senate^[24]Sony^[25], Microsoft^[26] Australian Prime Minister’s Office^[27], and even the Diebold Election Systems^[28] have all been caught WP:COI editing on Wikipedia. KQED even wrote a piece in their capital reports blog^[29]. Listen, I'm a volunteer, administrator and an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, my interests and motives are in whats best for Wikipedia. As I said Before If KQED stops and abides by Wikipedia policies (which i believe now they will) i forsee nothing to worry about. --Hu12 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

None of those examples are apt, nor would any of them justify banning an entire organization from editing or external links. If you can't accept a statement from an organization or an individual that he has learned his lesson will not break the rules, you are not assuming good faith. That would be unfair no matter who is involved, but if you really think a large reputable public television station in particular would actively game Wikipedia after promising not to do so, you're not giving reasonable consideration to the way organizations work. It is implausible. Wikidemo 07:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said Before If KQED stops and abides by Wikipedia policies (which i believe now they will) i forsee nothing to worry about--Hu12 07:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, wait and see then. Take care and thanks for the discussion, Wikidemo 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing useful, accurate, and neutral info about Prosper?

I think your removal of the Criticisms section of the Prosper page, as well as useful external links, is vandalism. Are you a Prosper employee trying to scrub out any criticisms? Leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.184.223 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered this, despite your repeated efforts to delete useful and appropriate information from the Prosper page. In addition, you have ignored my comments in the discussion page of the Prosper page. You sent me a message about edit wars, but to me it appears that YOU are the one involved in an edit war. I added appropriate material, which you deleted in full (along with much other appropriate material not adeed by me). I saw a Wikipedia help page on reversions that stated that wholesale reversions and deletions of other editors' additions are generally to be avoided. Thus, as near as I can tell, it is you, not I, that is violating the rules by your repeated deletions of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.184.223 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PokerPlayer Magazine article links

Hi Hu12 - I see that you nominated PokerPlayer magazine for deletion and removed links to articles from that magazine in a number of poker player articles. The AFD is probably okay - to my knowledge it is not a really widely circulated magazine - but I think that most of the links themselves are okay and in some cases pertinent. Plus most of them have been there awhile and no one has objected (we are usually pretty good about keeping spam out of the poker articles).

I reverted the links back in, and will mention it over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker so that others can have a look at it. If you want to make a case then please come comment at WP Poker. Thanks. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 07:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.--Hu12 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on your page re: the links I have reverted them back based on the nature and method of their addition to wikipedia, dispite the AFD nomination. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.pokerplayermagazine.co.uk--Hu12 08:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Susan Wald

An article that you have been involved in editing, Susan Wald, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Wald. Thank you. LeyteWolfer 16:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Patricia Bruder

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patricia Bruder, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Bruder. Thank you. LeyteWolfer 17:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Need an opinion

Hi, I noticed that you've made a few posts at WT:EL and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this discussion. An IP keeps trying to add a link to a small forum and has since been misinterpreting WP:EL and has now demanded an outside opinion. Thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll join the discussion.--Hu12 07:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully disagree

Removing verifiable content just to remove it, after being warned, how is that NOT vandalism? User:MaryPoppins878 is not a content dispute, she keeps removing verified content "just because she feels like it" after multiple warnings. An explanation would be helpful. Irish Lass 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a content dispute. A lame reason for removal of the content, I agree. but not blatent vandalism. You both are in violation of WP:3RR, and if I block MaryPoppins878 for I'd have to block you for the violation also. It appears to have stopped for now. If its reverted again don't revert back and report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--Hu12 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is, they aren't all the same edits. One time she'll add a person who shouldn't be added. The next she'll remove someone who is still a cast member - that's vandalism - so it's not actual three RR unless just putting the page back is 3:RR even though every edit is different. The user is a strongly suspected sockpuppet. If you could assist. Part of me would honestly be almost willing to be blocked (note I said almost) just to get that user blocked. But again, I thought when they are removing different content each time, it is not 3:RR. Would you mind verifying or at least explaining. Irish Lass 18:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another question if you don't mind

If a new user, IP only, no edit history, comes in and randomly removes content, leaves no edit summary, and you revert that on a page that you've reverted before, is that 3:RR since it's a new IP address removing verifiable content with no edit history prior to the removal of content? I had that happened and reverted because it wasn't MaryPoppins. Was that wrong? It wasn't content, it was more like blanking on a small scale. Irish Lass 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to assume the user was new so in that case blanking is vandalism, however the user needs to warned^[30] for each instance..and then if it persists (blanking), a block is in order. 3RR occures primarily between editors who have been here for a while, have edit histories, generaly think their revision is better than yours and should have "known beter" than warr over it. Reveting "obvious" vandalism doesnt apply to 3rr, but if its persistant, instead of going it alone, get others involved. --Hu12 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Out of habit I did warn immediately. Seems like there's something up with the weather or the planets, but it's been a wild day for people "reverting" because they want things "their way" and "no one believes them" (over four other sources provided). Not seen a day like this in a while. Thanks for the help. Always nice to find a receptive admin to help. Irish Lass 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. --Hu12 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Proxy user?

68.47.105.94 (talk · contribs) seems to be the same as this one that you blocked. I'm not 100% sure yet, but I find it extremely unlikely that two different vandals will target the same article in the same hour with the same attack style. Just thought I should bring it to your attention (article in question is here. Thanks, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Highly likely, I've added a blatantvandal warning. If this individual continues, this IP will be blocked aswell.--Hu12 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA & stuff

Firstly thanks. I'll not do the fancy sort of thanks but I'm not someone who would say nothing either. A surprising number of people supported me & I only hope I can come up to expectations.

Then advice. I've been fortunate (or otherwise) to have had the rights on projects whose concern about some areas of policy is not as strict as en wp! Equally on your own at times on a small wiki there is a tendency to make up your own rules & while I would never suggest any of my actions were tinged with rouge.... Specifically on Meta I fully protected closed blacklist archives quite quickly. There is no need for any editing at all and on Meta it seemed people thought if they deleted the request relating to them it would actually go! I have better things to do with my time than revert edits on totally unnecessary pages. Would I get into trouble here for protecting? Equally the log page (thanks) should, in my view, be sprot at the very least as it and teh archive serve as a "mnatter of record" of the requests?

If you do see any blunders, feel free to point them out to me, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't dissagree with it, full protection may get opposition without a valid reason. Wikipedia:Protection policy covers reasons. I see users/IP vandalize archived pages, so those necessary for refference, I add to my watch list. Perhaps, the argument can be made that the blacklist log and archive are pages are "system administration" pages that need rarely be changed and if modified could cause large-scale disruption if vandalized.--Hu12 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably already notice, but i went a head a protected the BL log, no reason for any one but sysops to edit. Because it won't be on every sysops watchlist, if they need to find a request (ect.) its assured to be intact and complete.--Hu12 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Salting

I saw you were trying to protect Young O - if you didn't know the way to protect a page now is to use Wikipedia:Protected titles which makes the name a red link rather than a blue link. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Its been a while since i salted and the template we use to use is gone... LOL, thanks--Hu12 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I only know because the day before it I had to salt a page for the first time too and had to find the instructions. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking CUBADUBACUBA

While I am glad that their edits were reverted, an indefinite block seems to be a bit much. Maybe the user does not understand what a reliable source is or how references are used on Wikipedia. And, "Cuba" claims to enjoy the site. Am I missing part of the story? –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user was reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism, appears to be vandal only account. --Hu12 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than editing my user page, what vandalism? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

More thanks!

For the spamstar which is appreciated indeed. Equally for the prot on the log page. I've done the closed archive too. I'd argue that as Mediawiki pages they are not conventional en wp pages nor should be treated as such for what it's worth. I'll have a go at organising the archive when I can (the next one at least) - to have request for listing and delisting junked together seems odd to me, I'll steal the meta version.

I'm sure you noticed but the poker one is done too. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

YW!. Thought about it more after our conversation, and I agree on that point, mediawiki pages are not conventional pages.--Hu12 10:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit in Edward Luce

Hi Hu, This is just to ask you. How did you realise that the link that you removed in Edward Luce was posted by a person from the organisation from where the link originated? I had created the original entry and never realised it. I just thought someone had posted a useful link on the said person.

Also that entry was made in June soon after I had created the entry, so it would have taken a bit of your time in tracing that link. Only after you mentioned did I run that IP address and find out it was true. Just curious:-) I am watching your page so answer here--PremKudva^Talk 12:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the ip's history, they have been doing this since 2005. Shame on them. It's kind of like solving detective mysteries. plenty of trails and mistakes are made and attempts to manipulate/spam this site, but those edits do get archived in site histories. Plenty of breadcrums to follow. We do quite a bit over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, your more than welcome to participate. ---Hu12 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam on Meteora

I noticed you had deleted a spam .com site on Meteora and other sites. While I hate spam, the site itself seemed to provide exceptional visual impressions not available on Wikipedia so I left it. I would be interested in your perspective. Thanks. Student7 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

have alook at the IP's contribs[31], fairly self explanitory per Wikipedia spam policies.--Hu12 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wrongly blocking my IP

...and screwing with valid edits. What's up? This "spamlink" thing seems pretty broken. --71.42.142.238 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear your IP was ever blocked. However judging from you Talk page, perhaps a review of WP:APR and WP:CIV is in advisable..--Hu12 15:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's start over at the beginning. Why did you edit the Hyman G. Rickover article? It's a valid link, not linkspam, and certainly not multi-article linkspam. I intend to revert this edit for these valid reasons, but find that I cannot do so due to some claim regarding my IP address and linkspam (???). If I sound irate, perhaps I am.--71.42.142.238 15:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't revert the edit because it's called "a blacklisted hyperlink." There's nothing at all wrong with the link, and it is not spam. Your reasons for editing the article, again, would be...? --71.42.142.238 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest against an irate tone. From what I can tell you have four edits to that article[32][33][34][35], none appear related. sorry. I also strongly suggest you read WP:OWN--Hu12 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just deal with the issue at hand, and not go off on unrelated tangents. You edited the Rickover article. It looks like an error. I'd like to fix that error, but find I cannot due to the above circumstances regarding an unjustified "blacklisted hyperlink," which apparently you've created...and in error. Let's fix this error and move on. --71.42.142.238 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No error. However I am growing short on Patience with your tone. I've found the lecture to the article "Thoughts on Man's Purpose in Life" and have added it. Hope that helps. --Hu12 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for restoring this article. I think we're done here. --71.42.142.238 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Friedman audio

Just wondered whether you'd consider un-blacklisting the recent link on The World is Flat article. I wasn't the original poster and have no ties to the sponsoring org. Looks as legit to me as the MIT link already there. Thanks. Barte 18:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article has quite few links covering his book, sometimes we just need a few sites representative of a category. Content of the article is whats most important to Wikipedia. thanks--Hu12 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Carnegie Council

RE: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#cceia.org__and_policyinnovations.org

I do not consider them an outrageous spammer, and have commented to that account on the Spam project page. Perhaps as many as one half the links they put in were justified, being major publications by the subjects or major affiliations by their very important partners. Not all, of course. some are spam. Blacklisting is probably an over-reaction--and listing their publications for deletion really inappropriate. DGG (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you put cceia.org up for blacklisting? I have to agree with everything that DGG says. I would like your opinion on why this site was added. Maybe I can be convinced that the site shouldn't be removed from the spam list at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. I look forward to your response. Travb (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is located Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council--Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

what Hu12 said just now is right--this discussion should continue on the spam talk page, not our personal pages. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

COI template on Parapsychology

I question the need for the template you added to the article, and you have not shared your justification for doing so. This is simply trashing up a FA with no credible reason given so far that I've seen. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It was per [36], however it has since been removed.--Hu12 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks-it would be a shame to mar the FA before any reasonable cause for alarm is offered. The COI evidence given so far turns out to be completely innocent and didn't compromise the quality of the article in any way.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it wasnt wide scale enough to warrant it. Thanks for the note;)--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of taopage blacklist proposal

I'm a little confused about the archiving since I don't understand what the discussion was that took place. Dirk Beetstra stated to use the COIBot to tell it's use? I don't understand how this is helpful when the spammer crosses articles with taopage and fruedfile.org.96.224.102.105 (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The COIBot Monitors link additions regardless or IP or user account. Once either of those links are added the will be logged into this page for taopage.org or this page for fruedfile.org.--Hu12 (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I attempt to remove the existing site links that are in those articles. It is a large amount so I don't want to be considered a spammer even though from how I read it those links are not permitted? How does one proceed now as websites on those articles all have historical case history which I listed? Do I follow up with an proposal again after another edit or two? I just want to know since I don't want to spam fighting spam. thank you.

Post a report over on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of social networking websites

I would appreciate a response at Talk:List of social networking websites. You removed a large section of that article and so far it seems as if you are the only editor in favor of that action. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already posted my comment. However, I agree the page is better served as a catategory.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Next Steps After Hearing From You

Hello Hu, I read the notes you left on my talk page on Nov 12. Thanks for them. Because I am new to Wikipedia, my approach to edit the page was not right. And once I came to your page, I saw so much discussion that it was worth spending 20 minutes just reading all previous Q&A here. While I use wikipedia everyday, I am new as a Contributor and I added references to a couple of external sites without first discussing on their talk pages with other regular contributors (this talk page concept has become clear only now). Now I am doing that, and sharing notes on Talk page to get opinion from others. Three quick questions for you to help me with next steps (a)Is this approach the right way to proceed? (b) What if the talk page has not seen anybody for months and the site I want to reference is indeed run by independent journalists? (c) Your note had a link: cutline.tubetorial.com - I never added that. Wonder how that appeared to you? This is my first interaction with people behind Wikipedia, so please bear with me. Thanks. (Shankar AVSB (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote the same Adsense owned sites. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. 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. Best place to begin is the welcome page and Wikipedia:No original research. I have fixed the link. thank you --Hu12 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing on another user's talk page

What was the point of this? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

did you read it?[37].--Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of this user...but they obviously read the post, acknowledged, and removed it. What I'm asking you is why you reverted that. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I see that you're actively editing, would you mind taking a second to answer this question? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, with archiving being the preferred method. If this user wanted to leave, but returns to participate in controversial topics, Its appropriate for non admins to have also access to this users history. Especialy when there is a history of persistant incivility. --Hu12 (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about restoring the history, I'm talking about you restoring comments. Please look at the diff I provided above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Videmus Omnia, is there any point with your continual reversions on that user's talkpage? Have you considered a RFC for this matter? It is obvious that the user is feeling quite harassed right now. Sfacets 06:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

err "continual reversions"?, LOL.. one revert my friend. --Hu12 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there appears to have been several admins harassing that user on his talk page, including you. Look at the history. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some bullying going on between various users especially user:Ryulong, who continuously adds information to this user's discussion page after the user has removed it. Sfacets 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought, too. Unless you can provide some explanation why you're doing this, knock it off, Hu12. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

knock what off?--Hu12 (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I linked above - restoring comments to the user's talk page that they've acknowledged and deleted. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. How many times would one need to this in order to deserve to be told to "Knock it off"? --Hu12 (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply asking why you're reverting a user on their own talk page. Why is that so hard to answer? This should be over already. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your question

In regard to this, do I need to explain where I edit on Wikipedia for some reason? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits in the last few days has soley consisted of scrutinizing various admins. User talk:Secret,User talk:Ryulong,User talk:Durova, User talk:WJBscribe, User talk:Jehochman and this page. Important point being I hope this is not an attempt to harass, I'll asume its not, however, disruption is considered harmful. If "following admins around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, this may become a very serious matter. What gives?--Hu12 (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying my questions weren't valid ones? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming your "directed" edits in the last few days are not tendentious? --Hu12 (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Chilling effect

Having reviewed the talk pages above, I'm not seeing anything rising even remotely to the level of disruption or harrasment. "Pestering" admins is certainly annoying, probably counterproductive, and bloody-well not against the rules. If you're geniunely concerned, that's not coming across in the messages you're leaving. They quite easily read as threats of blocking for thoughtcrime.

Taking your concerns to ANI or raise a request for comment might be more productive. Or just speaking more normally.

CygnetSaIad (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bloomsbury Spammer

FYI The Bloomsbury Spammer is back. Mannafredo (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

re User talk:Lsi john page

Hi. I note that you reverted Lsi johns removal of a discussion on his talkpage (which had previously been reverted by another admin after he had removed in the first place). As far as I am aware contributors are permitted to blank or otherwise remove material from their talkpage, although archiving is preferred. Is there any rule or policy I am unaware of permits a third party to replace messages against the will of the user (since it all remains in the history)? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. Policy also does not prohibit restoring comments, however users who repeatedly restore comments to a user's talk page more than three times in a 24 hour period may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Deleting discussions related to ongoing disputes is wrong^[38], and gives the appearance that the individual is attempting to hide behavior due to disruptive edits. Until July, he was was archiving, ( User_talk:Lsi_john/Archive/Archive_01 ). However since his recent involvment in attempting to desysop a user, the blanking^[39] of his talk began. Not sure what to make of the the cross-namespace redirects^[40][41][42]..but, I'd say in light of his recent activity, There is a legitimate interest in seeing past and current discussions.--Hu12 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting CUBADUBACUBA's block

I think you missed this. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I responded. Are you aware of any other accounts by this user? I see you have accepted Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/thedemonhog^[43]. Congrats--Hu12 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I see why you re-asked an already answered question. To illustrate a point for the purpose of furthering your attempt at RFA Q#4^[44] --Hu12 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Afternoon...

Hi Hu12 - you seem to be putting negative comments about me around the place - could you have a look at my most recent message on the spam blacklist, and try to Assume Good Faith before acting? I don't think I'm a spammer - please have a look at my past contributions. Annihilatenow (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes your current account with 50 edits appears to be only adding wikimobileactunsigned.com(which you just started) on a coupple talk pages[45], and is the correct way to do it. However It appears your in violation of WP:SOCK, operating WP:SPA "bad hand" accounts for the purpose of adding waytoblue.com. (Mkyxblu (talk · contribs),Matt.gwyn (talk · contribs) and confirmed 81.149.176.198 (talk · contribs). External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote waytoblue.com, and its squidoo lens. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Please be more careful in the future.--Hu12 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated, those people aren't me. They're colleagues of mine, and I'm not responsible for their actions. I'm a huge supporter of Wikipedia (and indeed a donor) and I've never added anything to an article that I didn't think made the article better from a neutral perspective. At the risk of repeating myself, this is the only account I operate. The IP address is the same because the edits are coming from the same office. I'd appreciate it if you'd retract the statements you've made about me having other accounts. To quote Assume Good Faith, Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives. Annihilatenow (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is strong evidence to the contrary, [46] and [47]. I'm sure I can't be the only one to see the irony in the attempt to de-blacklist one of the most prolificly spammed sites on wikipedia, in order to be able to add your companies self published link, from its domain. Please adhear to the policies ive mentioned above and in the future, please be more careful.--Hu12 (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't dispute the conflict of interest right now, but I do dispute that the edit I was trying to make was useless spam - which is the crucial point. I think it had useful info that people might have wanted to see relating to thr Led Zep album. I also dispute that the waytoblue.com links you removed were useless to the articles you removed them from - I think film trailers are useful to a film article.

I also hope you'll take into account that I've attempted to go through the correct channels to de-list Squidoo. I genuinely feel it's a useful resource - and I don't work for them - I'm just a user. I'm not interested in circumventing wikipedia's rules - like you, I want it to be the best resource possible. Annihilatenow (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being forthright, I do recognize your efforts and appreciate the candor. Lets move forward from this, and focus on more productive channels. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's move forward. I'd be grateful if you'd consider 'strikethrough'ing your warning on my talk page, as I think we've established now that I'm not controlling multiple accounts. It makes me feel a bit awkward having it there :) Annihilatenow (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We have not established that fact. Wikipedia operates a process known as Checkuser to identify some sock puppets in certain cases. I'm more than cofident that they all the same. per WP:SOCK Where misuse of an alternate account may result in the blocking of that one account, abuse of a second username account may result in all access to Wikipedia being blocked. I am trusting that this situation won't repeat, so there is no worry of a block on your main account. Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or striking comments is considered bad practice, however, I invite you to Archive your talk page.--Hu12 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got any control over whether or not people in my office (the other accounts on the same IP address) keep posting stuff or not, so I hope that it won't affect this account in the future. I can't use the checkuser process myself - they don't accept requests from people looking to prove innocence. I realise that as a regular spamfighter you have to deal with plenty of spammers but when situations like this arise in the future I hope you'll Assume Good Faith more often. In return, I'll be more careful of conflicts of interest. Annihilatenow (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep on repeating "assume good faith" in the face of evidence to the contrary, thats disingenuous. I'm showing good faith by not blocking you. please stop playing the "good hand", "band hand" role with me. I've heard this stuff plenty of times, seen all the tricks. In particular, using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making spam edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted. The other accounts are obvious one time spam throw away accounts, and have been blocked as such.--Hu12 (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

spam amityisland.net

Excuse me, I don't know who you are, maybe you can shed some light on that for me; You obviously have something against my site, you probably own your own JAWS site. But can you use common sense and realise I'm not spamming and am adding links to relative articles, and they're not alot. It is to do with the movie JAWS, the ride, the novel. Stop being jealous mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote amityisland.net. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Lostshark and IP's 60.234.215.101, 86.146.6.106, 58.108.161.195, 81.151.117.95, 86.151.253.216, consist entirely of adding external links to amityisland.net and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be amityisland.net related only. Please do not create articles or continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. 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. Please see the welcome page Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote amityisland.net right? --Hu12 (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

firstly I think you'll find not all those IP addresses belong to me, I've only posted on Lostshark and one of those address'.

secondly I am here to help wikipedia and so I use text from my site to add to wikipedia and add external links to my site to help users from wikipedia get more info for what they're looking for. Shall I just ask someone I know to post the links instead? Or will you think those IP addresses belong to me too? It looks like someone already has tried to put my link back. I contribute not just to promote, my site is a non-profit one and is for informational purposes only so I don't gain from it, it's just nice for people to find things easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hum

Ok bear in mind I have a "Commons" background....Image:Goldenaxe3.jpg would (I think) be deleted out of hand as a screenshot and so cannot be legally licensed? I know licensing is different here so maybe that kind of thing is ok? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the nuance of screensots in the policy, as I don't do much in that area. It might be ok. It is mentioned here, Ironicly the example has been deleted. User:Betacommand deals mostly in Non-free content criteria, but probably is best to ask him. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Xiulian

sorry to bother you... you moved the xiulian article but i don't find it in the wiktionary. It's linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism (top right side). Also some links was removed from bottom category of Sacred Sites. What's the process in that situation to clean up that box?StopTaoSpam (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a while ago, counterpart can be found at Xiulian. cleaned up the redlinks for you.--Hu12 (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the page in question and still shows the same situation. Unfortunately I have very limited wiki formatting skills so I wouldn't know how to correct it or if I should. In regards to Xiulian at wiktionary... It is not searchable. Would you mind so much correcting that as well. I apologize profusely.StopTaoSpam (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

your warning on !!'s page

I have removed that warning you issued to that victimized user as harassment. Please leave him alone. • Lawrence Cohen 20:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See my comment--Hu12 (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is nothing but baiting and offensive nonsense. Leave the user alone and don't hurt the chances that he may ever come back further. Unlike this spree of reverts, he was doing the most important task of this project, writing an encyclopedic content. If you are not interested in doing that, at least don't help chase away the users who are. --Irpen (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The "offensive nonsense" is nothing more than the explanation of policy which !!'s user pages' history was restored, and of which, incidentally, was the same policy under which !! asked to be vanished. Perhaps you don't approve of communicating to others, however I do. Your blanking vandalism of !!'s talk page twice[48][49], against his will and despite explicit written text[50] asking you not to, is poor form and disrespectful(not to mention policy). Apparently you may need a Wikipedia:Wikibreak, it is apparent that you are stressed to the point that it affects your editing.--Hu12 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to patronize me. If any of us needs a change of activity, it is the one who has not written any encyclopedia content for a while forgetting that this is the main purpose of this project. Your accusing me of vandalism does not even warrant a response. Please reread WP:VAND when you have a minute.

Your "explanations of of policy" as you called your edits at !!'s talk was mere baiting which could only aggravated the abused user further. Note that he thanked me for removing your stuff. Now, please stop abusing this user any further. He had enough. If you have an urge to post some policy reminders, you are free to use my talk for that. I never take arrogant lecturing close to heart. But the user in question does not need anything of that sort. If you continue baiting him, it will be added as evidence to the ongoing ArbCom case which was specifically prompted by the abuse of the excellent content editor by arrogance of a small circle of non-writing admins. Happy edits, --Irpen (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interupt your War against other users on the project, however I do not subscribe to that view. Your attempt to supress and delete communication through intimidation would indeed make for dramatic prose in your ArbCom war.--Hu12 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no war to carry. I am asking you a very simple thing, to not bait a particular user who is aggrieved enough without it. Unless you intend to continue that, that issue is settled and we can part in peace. --Irpen (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on !!'s talkpage as well as the proposed decision talkpage of the arbitration case. I find your approach and comments to be astonishingly insensitive and unnecessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "warning" was entirely uncalled for and counterproductive. Please leave this exceptional contributer in peace. Paul August ☎ 23:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you are an administrator — hard to believe. I question whether you possess the necessary good judgment expected of an admin. Paul August ☎ 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your admin nominator was desysopped, but I'm afraid I also found your "warning" to be arrogant and counterproductive. I find your comment to Irpen, above, about "attempt(ing) to suppress...communication through intimidation" particularly hypocritical in light of this message you left on my talk page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good grief - life is too short for this. Please, everyone, go and have a cup of WP:TEA or possibly a large WP:BRANDY. -- !! ?? 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with !! (who is proving to be a never-ending font of patience and goodwill on this matter) - I think Hu12 made a mistake with that warning, I think the response here has been more than sufficient to show Hu12 the error of his action, and now we should all drop it. Raul654 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Prosper

Hello. I'm a mediation cabal volunteer, and a fellow user, Ira01, has opened a case involving you, over the article Prosper (web site). I would like to mediate this case, which is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-28 Prosper (web site). I would appreciate it if you would let me know if you'd be willing to participate with me as a mediator. I hope that I can help you solve the problem, and I know that this is an informal process, so please air your doubts if you have any. Thank you. Regards, Neranei (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

sure:)--Hu12 (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist

Regarding your comments on User talk:Herbythyme#Blacklist, I really do think all of blogspot.com should be blocked with whitelisting done on an individual basis. Yet another throwaway IP (67.55.6.214) is spamming even more new sites. Spellcast (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

did you

warn User: Right America for his recent edits to Buddhism? Get back ASAP please. --MKnight9989 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The diffs are left of the warnings given.--Hu12 14:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarificantion amigo. --MKnight9989 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Regex

I am but a humble worker (while of course being a hacker of international repute ;)). I tend to copy what folk who know better than me do and that is what I did on meta. However as time went by I learnt a bit to stop my regex being sloppy (I had some patient teachers too). There is a sense in which having the admin tools should not allow people to edit such pages. I've fixed a few listings on Meta now that had unplanned effects because the regex was not precise enough. We really only want to block a particular site by and large and the \b both begins and ends the listing. If you check the link I guess the ending one is less necessary but it is possible that it would be needed. Block a xxx.com without \b and you will get xxx.com.au as well for example which may well not be correct(?). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. that makes sense. Will read further. I'm sure I'll have some questions as more complicated expressions show up on he list, however I will bear in mind you are very busy and will not try to interupt your dubious international exploits ;)). hehe --Hu12 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adsense spam?

With your expertise in adsense spam, I wanted to run this by you. Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been posting links to the same "news website" in citations. The site (andhranews.net) is really a directory that reprints news from other outlets without proper references. The site has an abusive amount of advertising including Adsense. The pub for that page also matches another site linked by the user (diff). The user had previously spammed another site (thisdaythatyear.com). Looking at the source for this page gives an adsense pub of 6158899834265448, but when mousing over the the Ads by Google link, the pub is the same as for the two sites previously mentioned: 4636414695604775. If anything, the user just needs to be encouraged to use a different source, but I wanted to see if you had any insight on the relationships between these websites. Thanks. Nposs (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you got one here. Many adsense publishers have several accounts, seems this is one of them. thisdaythatyear.com pub-6158899834265448 Registrant:VIJAY TECHNOLOGIES[51]. vizaginfo.com, pub-4636414695604775, Registrant:VIJAY TECHNOLOGIES[52]. ndhranews.net pub-4636414695604775, (Registration Service Provided By: VIZAGINFO.COM) Registrant:VIJAY TECHNOLOGIES [53]. electionsinfo.com pub-6158899834265448, [54] VIJAY TEHNOLOGIES. Blatent SEO, should be reported. It all ties together. Good work!--Hu12 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an uncommon practice by some [55]--Hu12 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a warning for Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and reverted todays contribs --Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Added, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_spammer--Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Done on Meta as noted elsewhere. Will you take it off the list here? Equally let me know of any developments I guess. I imagine we will be getting quite a few appeals on this one. Thanks for the work you put in, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread (metsguy234)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mistakes need acknowledging, where I've criticized a comment of yours. Apologies if I came over too strong there, but I feel very strongly about this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lulu (publisher)

I noticed you removed the link to an author's Lulu.com page as a commercial link. What is the WP policy on links to Lulu? I see it is linked from the Lulu (publisher) article itself (no brainer there), but I haven't yet found a mention of it in any more general EL policies or discussions. Has it been discussed somewhere? Personally, I think it's a bit of a grey area. The site is commercial, but if it is the printer used by an otherwise notable author, and if the author's page on Lulu.com has info relevant to the article, I think it may be worth linking, especially as we link to other author websites that often have links to where their books can be purchased. Hmmm... - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for jumping into this dicussion. I just removed some links to self-published Lulu books the other day. I know that WP:SPS prevents us from using such books for *verification*, and they don't count as reliable sources. If we knew something about the reputation of the author, that could make such books be accepted in the sense that ordinary external links are sometimes included as 'useful,' though self-publication of such links is still severely frowned upon. Can you point to an example where a link to a Lulu book is, in your opinion, justifiable? EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to concur with EdJohnston's point--Hu12 23:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit confused

I'm a bit confused as to why you've chosen to label me as "an individual associated with the" Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and accused me of posting "multi article linkspam". Care to explain? Picaroon (t) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasnt directed at you, it was an error during a multi article reversion fom links added by IP's and accounts asssociated with the Carnegie Council.--Hu12 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. "\bcceia\.org\b" was removed from the spam blacklist in November, so in theory I should be able to readd the links, right? But I'm getting the spam filter notice, telling me that the "\bpolicyinnovations\.org\b" entry is preventing the readdition of "cceia.org" links. Any idea why? Picaroon (t) 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Worked around the blacklisting. its fixed--Hu12 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AtTask

Hi Hu12,

I wanted to ask your advice on how I can change the article about AtTask to meet criteria. I took out the sentences I had added about AtTask's integration features since they might be interpreted as advertisements or self-promotion.

Also, I found a number of independent sources that have covered AtTask's fairly in-depth: [56], [57], [58], and [59].

I am also happy to expand the article and include more sources. More in-depth Wikipedia articles like Vpmi, 24sevenoffice, and ProjectInsight have even less independent and in-depth references, yet have not been made candidates for deletion.

Vpdjuric (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric

Heliodisplay

Hang on - I think you're reverting to the wrong version. While there clearly is a COI, the COI version is actually more accurate and neutral than the other. For instance, the company name is IO2 Technology, not IO2 technologies; and the version you reverted to contains a bunch of anon-posted and completely unsourced hostile commentary (e.g. "The unit was apparently riddled with flaws due to an immature engineering set up"). Maybe it would be better to revert further back before the edit war started. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to your version. sorry.LOL--Hu12 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

TradeTech has a malformed AfD template?

Hello Hu12. Why would the AfD template on this article point to the AfD of Worldwide Business Research? There is currently no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TradeTech. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple article listing per AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion.." On each of the remaining articles, at the top insert the following:"

{{subst:afd1|PageName}} .."Replace PageName with the name of the first page to be deleted, not the current page name"..wouldent think it, however it make sense.;)--Hu12 20:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your version does seem to follow the rules. My obtuseness caused me to not see the second article; I thought it was just a 'remark', not part of the definition of the AfD. See if you like my slight reformatting; if not, you can revert it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the one listing for the TradeTech should be enough, Having it uptop detracts from the rationale of its inclusion..IMHO. I've only listed multiple pages a few times, so don't sweat it, still seems strange to me.--Hu12 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

arcinfo

I consider your block excessive, as this was for the insertion of a very small number of links from appropriate pages to useful neutral informational pages at the site of a major non-profit oranization. Please do not abuse your authority on things like this, when there are major spammers to deal with. DGG (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Referring to Arcinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), spamming www.arc.org, Emphasis 'Arc I assume? 17 spam edits within an hour of account creation... perhaps should have {{usernameblock}}'d this account indef, instead of a 24 hour block. generous by most accounts, critisized by you. But you tend find fault with me anyways. May I recomend reading the official policy on the English Wikipedia re; WP:USERNAME#Inappropriate_usernames, Wikipedia does not allow usernames promotional such as this instance (Arcinfo spamming arc.org), where it contains a domain or implies a web address. Perhaps this spam campaign, which you were not a part of, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek, is an example of one of the "major spammers to deal with"?--Hu12 (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

agreed about the username, and you could most certainly ask him to change it. But if you actually look at the 17 edits, they were not 17 insertions of items--most of them were fixing up the few links he put in.-- and every one of them I have looked at, and think appropriate. Everyone of them would have been added had he asked properly on the talk pages.

I have well read the policy, and follow it, and have a list of articles where i delete spam when I see it--so successfully, for most of them, that its been a while since anyone has even tried on most of them, because they know I (and others) are looking. In my opinion you far exceed the policy and deter well-intentioned contributors.

the one I helped out with today, and expect to be following up for some weeks to come, is the mess from [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam? Virtualogy].

webgeek is indeed an excellent example of the sort of spammer where we should concentrate our efforts. I'm glad Nposs caught him. I'm glad you helped. Keep up the good work. But i see nobody has yet blocked the account? DGG (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding webgeek.....

Is there anyplace that offers a simplified explanation of what s/he was doing? I read a very long page and I am afraid that I did not understand the technicalities.<br. /> --Nbahn (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I'm writing to you because I see you're patrolling the List of project management software. Doing RC patrol, I am accustomed to people speedied for notability saying "but the article about X is no more notable", to which the reply is WP:WAX. But today I speedied Standard Time (software) as spam, and its creator bounced back with a new version, and an edit summary of "This is not an ad. The software exists. It is a project management product, listed with the others in the List of Project Management Products." So I prepared a reply explaining that existence was not enough, we need significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and saying read WP:NOTE and WP:SPAM and WP:COI and so on; and prepared to put a PROD on the entry to give it some time. But before posting those, I went to have a look at the existing products in the List, and having done that I really can't feel justified in rejecting Standard Time (software) - I looked at the first 12 and I doubt if any could survive a strict application of WP:NOTE - certainly seven of them have no external reference except their own website.

This seems more of a worried ramble than anything. I guess my question is: what standards of notability do we/should we actually apply in practice? Would the best thing be to let Standard Time (software) in and put a {{notability}} template on it, and on all the others? JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:Notability (software) as a reference, however, software applications are products, and now fall under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I believe you are corect about Standard Time (software), its speediable WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11. I'd say for existing articles that may be of concern a prod tag, or on very questionable items that fail the google news test, may want to consider an Afd. May want to check the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, however it doesn't see very active. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Well, what can I say, Hu12. I so appreciate your support both during my RfA as well as over the last year. I probably wouldn't have done this without your continued encouragement (and pestering). I look forward to using these new tools. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly successful RFA. Dont forget to tweak your monobook.js, some can be found WP:JS, but look through other admins monobook.js for some tweaked tools, ieUser:Hu12/monobook.js. --Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm pretty clueless on scripts and monobooks, so I'm going to have to study this a while. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Project Portfolio Management Software

I noticed that you redirected the article 'Project Portfolio Management Software' to 'Project Portfolio Management'. By doing so, the content on the page has been lost. I was hoping you could tell me why this was done and if it can be undone.--Tilleyg (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actualy I'll delete the redirect, seems there are suitable articles that already exist covering this. Project management software, List of project management software--Hu12 (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Help Preserve Joseph Bustos

Below is a list of published books. Could you please unblock?

• Beginning .NET Web Services with C#.NET(2002, Wrox Press) ISBN 1-86-100757-4
• Beginning .NET Web Services with VB.NET(2002, Wrox Press) ISBN 1-86-100725-6
• Effective Visual Studio.NET (2002, Wrox Press) ISBN 1-86-100696-9
• Professional XML - 2nd Edition (2001, Wrox Press) ISBN 1-86-100505-9
• ASP 3.0 Programmer's Reference (2000, Wrox Press) ISBN 1-86-100323-4
• Professional Visual Basic 6 XML (2000, Wrox Press) ISBN 1-86-100332-3
• Professional ADO 2.5 RDS with ASP 3.0 (2000, Wrox Press) ISBN 1-86-100324-2
• Professional ADO 2.5 (2000, Wrox Press) ISBN 1-86-100275-0

--Usc.ultrageek (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi RFC

I'm sorry I wasn't able to participate, I was away from Wikipedia at the time. I hope the issue is resolved. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Would have liked him to participate in a constuctive mannor, however he opted to leave wikipedia. Good to have you back, Jayjg!--Hu12 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it's good to be back! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Usertalk:Xcstar

I deleted a message left on my talk page because it was an unwarranted personal attack. As noted in WP:UP "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages." It should not be reverted. Many thanks, Xcstar (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can i delete

Can i delete it then because i want to put it behind me and that comment you made. Sunderland06  21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your seeking Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching[60], "I would like to become an admin one day and i would like to be coach so that i know everything that i need to know when that day comes.And my page for this is at User:Sunderland06/Admin Coaching".

I suggest that if this is the case, you would want to start by keeping your talk page discussions and archives intact, rather that persistantly deleting or requesting them to be speedy deleted. It is probably ill advised to hide discussions and prevent transperancy of your dealings on Wikipedia, should the day arive that you would attempt to seek adminship status--Hu12 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete your comment and reinstate the archive.but i'll just have to try to be an admin in 5 or so years then. Sunderland06  21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You moved your whole talk page (one years worth) and history to an archive[61] and have requested speedy [62][63] twice??? You can do whatever you want to your page, however this may be an issue for some in five years, not that i wouldent support you at that time, but the fact that you excessivly attempted to hide/delete discussions in order to prevent transparency. My attempts to help you were for your benifit. best wishes--Hu12 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You can put everything back then, but do you think one day i could be an admin, taking in to context that i'm only 13 years old.Sorry for being a twit, and ive resolved that with Jaranda/Secret twice.Thanks. Sunderland06  22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You restored it fine, thank you. I don't have a crystal ball, but it will help you not having that one year gap in your discussions. Its all behind you, I understand. Focus on good editing and any issue of days past will pale in comparison. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, about the admin coaching, would you mind coaching me, it would be good for me and it could make our friendship better.Thanks.And the oomment from tonywalton about deleting the archive was before you explained that you cant delete it.im removing the comment.Cheers. Sunderland06  22:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, hows about it.Thanks. Sunderland06  23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While I am flatterd you ask, unfortunatly I need to decline for now. mabey down the road. Thanks though. Good luck!--Hu12 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do i need more experience, if yes how long. Sunderland06  23:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated restores on User talk:Sfacets

See Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings, he's allowed to remove the warnings, even if he's blocked right now.

My putting Guy's note back once and explanding on it in depth was at least in the grey area of Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments; just putting it back again after he removes it is probably against the guideline on user pages.

We don't need to beat him up with the stuff. He's seen it and acknowledged both posts; and responded to mine. Pushing him into behavior that could get him blocked by pestering him on his user talk page is not good practice on our part...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was planning an addendum also, however I do feel that addressing the issue, now while he's venting will lead to a constructive closure, and hopefull an end to his recent behavioral issues. His blocks have become more frequent as of late, which is indicative of a deeper issue. If whatever it is can be addressed through discussion, its probably best to address it now and get this resolved before his block expires, so Sfacets and all involved can focus on more constructive pursuits.--Hu12 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-punitive letter of censure

See Rickover talk page. As previously noted, Wikipedia's "censure" page is completely irrelevant to this article. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A 6.53 mb, 381 page manual, without citing the specifics is excessively inappropriate, and inaccessable to those with dial up or slow connections.--Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• FYI: Both this IP and another IP who posted to this page last month [64], user:71.42.142.238, are sock puppets of banned user:AustinKnight. I've blocked both IPs, though I expect he'll return with new ones. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Explains the candor and tone of the recent posts from that person. Thanks. After downloading the PDF, I've posted here for your review a possible suitable alternative, that should at least help some with the inaccessability issue. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Elert block

I've blocked User:Elert for a period of 48 hours for repeated self-promotional spam. When I went back to check/revert his changes, I found that you had beat me to the punch. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

@task article deleted

Hi Hu12,

I noticed that you recently deleted the article about @task (the software) and locked the page. I think that @task meets Wikipedia's criterion for notability: "Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s). This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews." Full-length reviews have been written about @task in InformationWeek, eWeek, web 2.0 journal, rev2.org, etc.

After the first [AfD] debate, I thought the conclusion was that the article should be re-written to be about the software (since the company was not notable, but the software was notable). I rewrote the article and put it on [my user page] and asked for everyone's feedback. I got a bit of feedback, and after making some changes to the tone of the article, I posted it.

I would like to understand whether the article was deleted because it had the tone of an advertisement or if @task (the software) is not notable. If its the former, please take a look at my user page and give me feedback on how you think the article should be changed.Vpdjuric (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Boon Software page deleted

Hi Hu12,

Based on the activity logs of the above page, it shows that you have deleted the article and blocked the re-creation of the article. You have referred to the deletion review of the article, however do note that in the review, it was clearly stated that the article that was tagged from deletion is different from the article that was deleted. After the deletion of the article, i have sought the assistance of some of the admins who have participated in the review by asking them to review the page via my user page. They have approved the page due to it being different from the earlier tagged and asked me to go ahead to create it again. Please review and consider the deletion again.

Thanks Dleewh (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

And a very merry christmas to you, and indeed a very happy new year. Sunderland06  19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Incisive Media

I agree with the deletion of Incisive Media , but isn't 4 days a little soont o be re-noming it for deletion after a keep? Watching here. Mbisanz (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL..didn't see that. Went by the deletion log which showed April 2007, and nothing was posted on the talk so I assumed the first afd was some other incarnation from an earlier date. Deleted it so as to not prevent a future nomination, should there need to be one. Its late/early morning here..oops--Hu12 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion

I respect your opinion as an experienced editor and I was wondering if you could advice me on a particular issue? Alatari (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

@task

Hi Hu12,

Have you had a chance to review the rewritten @task article on my user page? Just wanted to get your opinion. Thanks. Vpdjuric (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not "spam"

Please remove your warning from Lyoshka's page. There is a thread here regarding the additions, and no one seems to agree with your classifying this as "spam." Mr Which??? 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

505 links with no other edits other than legistorm.com, is a violation of both WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, I'll chime in in a minute.--Hu12 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing negative or "commercial" in the links. How are they "spam"? Is it spam when an editor who works on movie articles adds IMDB links to tons of movie pages? Where's the line here? Mr Which??? 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The line was in my last post.--Hu12 (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. You proffered no "line." You simply said "505 edits" and pointed out that they were SPAs. Those aren't "lines", those are your opinions. Now please answer my other questions as well. There's nothing remotely "spammy" about the links. They're helpful and informative. Mr Which??? 05:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had seen the discussion here before staring the one below. If the issue is that the links are tainted solely due to their insertion by a supposed "spammer", why were they removed when I reinserted them. I have pored over the site, and all I find is useful and relevant information about congressional staff salaries. Again, you will need to reference a valid Wikipedia policy that requires their deletion. Alansohn (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtTask (2nd nomination)

Hi, you recently posted the above AFD which was closed by User:Bearian, I believe, inappropriately. I posted a message (through the advice of the Wikipedia:Deletion review guidelines) on this user's talk page stating my opinion on that matter, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on this as well. I think we need to overturn this deletion and simply warn the primary editors of the page. Otherwise, we'll need to delete all the articles at List of project management software, which I believe would worsen Wikipedia's coverage on the topic, not improve it (and I'm as concerned about spam as anyone). Thanks. -- Renesis (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its aparrent after eight deletions total including two Afds, this has become an excessive case of abuse and sockpupetry to use wikipedia as a promotional tool. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#AtTask.2C_Inc.. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. In this case the "contibutor" needs to be midfull of WP:SOCK, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. The AFD was was appropriate as was Bearian's closing of it. Unfortunatly it's to soon to reconsider--Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to Legistorm.com

On several occasions, you have removed links to legistorm.com, a site which provides relevant Congressional staff salary information, without providing any justification for removal. Your changes have been reverted. If you have a valid justification that requires their removal under Wikipedia policy, you must provide that as part of your edit summary. Further inappropriate deletions will be reverted. Alansohn (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You have removed the salary info links I added to the CongLinks Template, which I added. You did not provide any justification there. On an anon user's talk page which I noted the template change on (because it was involved in an NPOV discussion related to only having the salary link on a single senators page) you claimed it was a conflict of interest and spam. It is neither, and conforms to Wikipedia:External_links. Please do not remove this again without further discussion (on the Template's Talk Page. kenj0418 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks - must have made a "friend"! Interesting - no reverse DNS on that IP according to luxo --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Couple of blacklistings though....! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

YW..Telefonica del Peru, Lima, Peru. Behind a firewall I presume. could be related to 201.134.177.1, but that just a guess. I'm sure you'll make more of these friends, i know I have..LOL--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI report on addition of links by Filtv

You recently responded to an ANI report on an editor's addition of a website as potential spamming of a website with images. I've responded on the report. It appears that all of the images are actually "free" images, released under Creative Commons license 3.0. — ERcheck (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to Know, now if we can get him/her to stop spamming them on every related page.... Thanks for the note, cheers--Hu12 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum/correction: I've updated my comment on ANI as well ... The license is cc-sa-by-nc-3.0. So, the "non-commercial" is an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the contributing editor was not aware of the details of CC license requirements on Wikipedia; that on little "nc" detail. So, images an issue; editor needs mentoring, but probably not a deliberate spammer. — ERcheck (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Great follow up. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Knataka

This user is still vandalizing Wikipedia and/or violating npov in editing articles, despite the warnings we have given. I don't know what else to do. In addition to this, the article Music of Karnataka is a copy of Carnatic music (like a test page prior to the latter article's creation), except it has a lot of nonsense in it. I've listed it under a speedy deletion tag. Could you please help in both matters? Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to bring this up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not sure what to make if this users edits or what the acount is about (share, sockpuppet..who knows). This user may need a few more eyes watching it. thanks Ncmvocalist--Hu12 (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whitelist

Just catching up on stuff - can you log the whitelisting, it will make it easier in the future - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

done, wasn't able to find it yesterday..--Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all you do. I know you get criticized -- sometimes just for trying to help some other editor when they've gotten themselves into a situation you would've have handled differently.

I think it's in the best interest of encyclopedia-building to consider some sort of controlled removal of legistorm from the blacklist, but I personally cannot support such an action until folks calm down and stop poking sticks in your and Herby's eyes. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AB. I'd agree with that. I warned them of the possibilty of a BL on Template talk:CongLinks, prior to this. none of them heard of this site till the 600+ spam frenzy. Now they all demand (as if it has unearthly relevance), to re-spam the project through a template. The template is only two months old, rated as low-importance. Cool Hand Luke created it so i understand his want for links, as he's trying to bring relevence to the template. Have look through the other links from Storming Media LLC, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Storming_Media_LLC_Spamming, If there is a spam pattern this will need to go to the Administrators' noticeboard‎. --Hu12 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I may not have time for awhile. I'm getting sucked into the gravitational vortex of Christmas domesticity. After some point, not even light will be able to escape until Boxing Day. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, if you ever get the chance, try to get your hands on Stuart McLean's Vinyl Cafe: A Christmas Collection. Hard to find outside Canada but worth the effort. Describes the Christmas gravitation vortex perfectly.

The template replaces Template:CongBio2, which has been around since August 2006, and Template:Votesmart, which has since been deleted as redundant. The impetus for it's creation is the fact that the same suit of links was being maintained on every congressional biography. It seemed like it would be much easier to maintain them from a central template. It's creation was organic. I didn't promote the template very much, and was surprised that it was later adopted by the relevant wikiproject. All that said, it may make more sense to use the link as a reference instead of an EL.

I would appreciate some good faith in this area. I've never assumed bad faith for you. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what a "controlled removal" of the link from the blacklist even means. Are you really afraid of this link being added to congressional pages? If so, why? If not, why the need for a "controlled removal", instead of simply saying, "Oops! That's not a bad link, and is actually quite useful--removed from blacklist"? It's not about saving face, or anyone "winning" the debate, it's about improving the encyclopedia. This link improves the encyclopedia. It's as simple as that. Mr Which??? 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr Which. Your contributions to wikipedia consist of tendentiously interupting discussions and is disruptive. This conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mr. 12. Wouldn't blacklisting (and refusing to unblacklist) a site that is acknowledged to contain useful, non-partisan and relevant be both tendentious and disruptive? Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, and your statement has no merit in fact.--Hu12 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you online?

I got the same spurious warning and I think that account User:Macys123 might be compromised so I am considering blocking. What do you think? TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be, however it has stopped. I would see if it occures again then edit/disable his User:Macys123/monobook.js, and take it o AN. --Hu12 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

On a posibly related note, the user posting in this thread is young, under 14. So this could be a peer of his/hers, which may be chalked up to kids goofing around/not knowing any better. we'll watch it either way. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

UST Global

Hello Hu12. How about I restore that link at UST Global but as a reference, not an external link? That *is* an interview with the COO of UST Global though it doesn't need to puff sourcingmag.com while doing so. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Ed. That sounds like a good idea. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User name blocks

Hi. When you blocked Clinical archives (talk · contribs), you did so with autoblock on, account creation disabled, and email disabled [65]. FYI, it's important that a user name block for a good faith username be a "soft block" so that they can create another account. --B (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Keep eye out, this is a promotional account and most likely attempt to promote Clinical Archives, such a was done on the user page[66]. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the help on the reference fixes on the Howe page. I had a brain cramp. Newguy34 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL..no problem, I get them all the time. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Coaching merging

I'm glad to have your support in regards to that the merging should be done - I understand you are a respected administrator. However I'm not sure to what extent your support extends. All the coaching articles need work - and most of them would not be heavily hurt by merging into coaching since most say little besides "coaching is not consulting or therapy or ..."

I am rather inexperienced in terms of merging articles, and so have proceded with less boldness than could be liked. I would like to make Life and Development Coaching a redirect - I shall attempt to do so immediately, redirecting thus to life coaching.

Thanks again.
--Kiyarrllston 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Life and Development Coaching is certainly better as redirect to life coaching. Dating coach, Systemic coaching and Personal coaching should also be consolodated in some way.--Hu12 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

ship link removal

I don't necesarily disagree with the removal of the ship review links, I just want to understand the reasons. Were they removed because the incorrect link format caused them to redirect to the site's main page? The links were pointing towards addresses such as http://cruisecritic.com/reviews/review.cfm?ShipID=306 ... after looking, it appears that the target site now requires the "www." in the domain name, so if the link instead read http://www.cruisecritic.com/reviews/review.cfm?ShipID=306 , then it goes to the actual ship review. Even with the corrected link, I'm not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia; but removing due to "redirect" reasons appears a fixable issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize that I ramble, so let me clarify what I'm actually asking. Was the reason for removing the links because of the accidental redirect, or was there another reason? I have been working with cruise ship articles recently as part of WP:SHIPS, so I will likely encounter them again in the future if/when someone re-inserts them. Please let me know if you interpret there to be other policy driven reasons to revert the entries should I encounter someone re-adding them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• cruisecritic.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Thanks for the note. The redirects caught my attention and were removed per WP:EL, as you can tell there are whole lot left. A pattern emerged as I was going through the links, they all (200+) seem to have been added by one user, Splamo (talk · contribs). This raises several policy issues, WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:NOT. On the surface all of this activity seems like it might be good faith, however, all the links added to wikipedia are by Splamo and to the same adsense account (pub-4131962432578484). Sneaky spamming can lead to sitebans and is rooted in precedent^[67][68]. The big picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. Since your involved in WP:SHIPS, are there alternative review sites, and if so, has the project implemented any mesure to prevent this sort of abuse, such as a project sanctioned template?. I ask as these links from this site may no longer be welcome onthe project.--Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I had missed the Adsense issue, I have browser plug-ins that block those scripts/links. I agree that it's a concern. I'm relatively new to the project, but my experience so far has been that the primary focus of WP:SHIPS has been on military vessels, so links to this site hasn't been scrutinized as thoroughly as would be hoped.

Unfortunately, I believe that the alternative is for WP to not link to any reviews. To the best of my knowledge they are the largest such site - and their star ratings, based on their reviews, are utilized by multiple travel sites (Orbitz, Travelocity, and Expedia, are three of which I'm aware) so they are widely recognized as a standardized rating tool within the industry, and I've seen them referenced as a source on NY Times articles about cruising. The only other review sites of which I'm aware tend to be more biased, or are directly owned by various travel agent sites and would certainly be inappropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I've raised the issue for further discussion at WT:SHIPS#Cruise_Ships_and_use_of_review_links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Kongo

It would be unfair to remove one user's comments and not the other's. Alice copy and pasted the Help:Reverting article to the Kingdom of Kongo talkpage. Remove her spam. Jose João (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly comparable to your addition here. Not that alice is correct, however you can make your case in other ways. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

She's been following me around for four months, breaking virtually every policy, and all she gets are 24-hour blocks for disruption. Remove her crap! Jose João (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are going to now remove her text-dump. It would be prettttty hypocritical to selectively remove comments. Jose João (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• We get it. You're making a point by textbombing her talk page, and the article talkpage as well. Her c & p was MUCH smaller, and directly on point. Should she have linked it instead? Sure. But she wasn't randomly textbombing like you are. Mr Which??? 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite, You need to take account of your behavior, after being informed that text dumping is inaproriate, you continued, thats disruptive. Rise above that sort of behavior --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• He's now text-dumping at both the article talk page, and at Alice's talkpage as well. Mr Which??? 07:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

I wanted to ask you this as I am unsure of the WP policy regarding discussion pages about BLPs. User IP 68.166.238.18 has posted a link to a website on the discussion page under Celebrity Friends and Royal Cousins. The link is to a source that fails the WP:BLP#Reliable_sources and has previously been removed from the article itself under that WP policy. Is that link allowable on the discussion page?--Lazydown (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

HedgeStreet

Hu12 - I have essentially rewritten the HedgeStreet article from the ground up. Could you take a look and see if you feel it still merits a visit to WP:AFD? According to WP:PROD, articles that have been up for discussion at AFD (as this one has) should not be PROD-deleted but rather taken back to AFD. If you are ok with removing the PROD-template from the current version, I would take that as a "withdrawn nomination" from AFD. If you feel the article should still be considered for deletion, I will post it to AFD myself as a procedural matter ... but I would ask that you update your PROD-reason before I do that so I can properly represent your concerns. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod, wonderful job on the re write. No further concerns on my part. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Moldopodo

I think he has a strong relation with second breath program from Moldova. That's why his POV to destroy the articles.Ungurul (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

he's blocked for a week, don't WP:HARASS him--Hu12 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, I just wanted to see if there's a connection. Because it seems strange that he's aleardy blocked on Fr:Wikipedia as well as on others.--Ungurul (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI re: cruise critic

FYI: I replied to WT:SHIPS#Cruise_Ships_and_use_of_review_links, I did not know if you are monitoring that page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I also posted to User_talk:Splamo#Cruise_ship_reviews_in_question's talk page, as I didn't see a notice to him/her on the concerns that you raised. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page King David Isle of Man

I apologize for my edits of others comments on the talk page. Perhaps it was overzealous of me but it seems to me that some of the comments are directly against WP:RS, specifically the point addressing Biographies of living persons which states, Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just the article space. I removed the reference to that particular website because it isn't allowed.

Further, I'm sorry for "text bombing" the talk page, but it seemed necessary to specifically list why certain things User Heraldic and a couple of other IP Users could not include that reference and why Howe's website is allowed. It has all been repeated to them many times on the talk page and they seem to be ignoring it. It's very frustrating because they are systematically attempting to circumvent the purpose of WP:BLP.--Lazydown (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The reason one is allowed vs the other has been discussed, particularly Howe's located here.--Hu12 (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

question

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

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

Copacabana

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

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

[King David Isle of Man Sale of Titles]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancestry.com as a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about info box

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

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

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

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

Added images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His claim to be King of Mann

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

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

Selling Noble Titles

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

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

SPA?

I am curious about your designation [69] here that 151.204.231.247 is a Single Purpose Account. Upon looking at the uesrs contributions Special:Contributions/151.204.231.247, i noticed that the editor seemed to be an editor who had just begun on wikipedia. However, the editor had made only one edit relating to the upcoming 2008 elections. He had made many other edits to other articles about other topics. I find the notion that he could be a Single Purpose Account very questionable. Please explain why you added this designation or i will remove the tag. Perpetualization (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Knataka

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neko Rahmen + Vuze

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.226.228.171

It looks like your 24 hour block of 63.226.228.171 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) didn't have the intended result. First edit after the block expired was to add the link to ridetheslut.com back to South Lake Union Streetcar.[70] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Blocked From Editing

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

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

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

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

Charlie Handley

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

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

Libre Society

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

new year

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

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

TfD nomination of Template:Deferwps

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

Request for really simple conflict resolution

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

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

It would take less than a minute, thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defamatory and slanderous accusation made by Rsazevedo against Hu12

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

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

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

Re: Additions of http://dailydooh.com

Hi,

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

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

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

Pretender to the throne of Mann

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

I have never liked myspace links in general, but because its an official page of the articles subject its normally allowed, however I think one official (his) is plenty. Ok, unreal-royal dot com. Well asside fron Failing Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources it is also a Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources. This is no more than a blog and should never be used as a source for material about a living person, which in addition, also fails WP:EL. It was created only recently (2007-12-24), according to whois^[71][72], from the activity related to this site it would appear someone is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. Secondly, Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment apply to any kind of attack or harassment in any context. [unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html], Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia...off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. see also WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another or multiple Wikipedians is never acceptable. Lastly, No. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view... Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research. ^[73]--Hu12 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Re: Protected titles

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

Ustaudinger (talk · contribs) block

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

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

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

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

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

Ustaudinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) I only get this wiki for the nick (746 projects scanned. 15 contributions found in 1 projects)^[74]. --Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Spam on Particle accelerator article ==

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

Biodiesel

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

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

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

Heraldry Online

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

Monitor

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

The comment I had made here has been moved to my Talk page. THanks, Floralpattern (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Heraldry Online

Could you please explain your reasons for deleting all links to heraldry-online.org.uk? (You seem to have inadvertently archived/deleted my original question.) --Heraldic 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 January 2008

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are the webmaster of heraldry-online.org.uk. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia (prior to the Howe article), in order to promote heraldry-online.org.uk. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Heraldic and IP 212.240.95.228, consist mostly of adding external links to heraldry-online.org.uk and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the most prior to the howe article seem to be heraldry-online.org.uk related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. 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. Please see the welcome page. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines--Hu12 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you will see it but [75] cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, added a guidance comment^[76] --Hu12 (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I will play by the rules. However, I hope that other editors do see that my site does provide information that is of some merit, particularly the Scottish heraldry. Even if it was a valid means, I thought setting up the Arms details within a Wiki article would have been just too big a task.

It is just a shame you did not contact me on the 24th December to let me know that I had erred. --Heraldic 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Its not a bad site IMHO as long as it remains neutral, and free from the cotrovesy of the "other site" you assisted in collating and reviewing. I'm sure it has its place on Wikipedia as a reference, however lets let other long standing editors make that determination. Cheers ;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that a few may consider controversial is that I do not list "assumed" Arms, only those granted by an established heraldic authority. My train set, my rules ;-). --Heraldic 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

How do I stop the Sinebot?! I click on the signature icon religiously but it is not enough for the SineBot! --Heraldic 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

There is definatly somthing going on, Maby some clues can be found at Wikipedia:Signatures. If I recall we've gone over various methods. Might want to add the question on that talk page, I'm sure you arent the only one who's had the problem.--Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you have added an EL at Heraldry. Thank you.--Heraldic 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. ;) --Hu12 (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from Nancy

Thank you for removing that unpleasant question from my talk page - my pages have had their fair share of vandalism but that was truly the most offensive thing anyone has ever written. Thanks again, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome ;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello?Floralpattern (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Could you answer my question? If you would rather not deal with this issue, do you suggest that I go to deletion review? Please let me know.Floralpattern (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion review is the apropriate place, as 4 different administrators including an AFD have deleted it.--Hu12 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Monitor Group. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Floralpattern (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Question About Ingredients of Spam

Hi Hu12, I'd like to ask you about the delete you made to the article microfinance today, which you notated as a 'spam entry'. Why was this paragraph spam? Everyone who works in microfinance knows that the criticisms identified in it are frequently made. It use references to back up its points. The references lead to the organization (CGAP) generally acknowledged to be the thought-leader in our industry. CGAP has no motivation (profit or otherwise) for self-promotion. I didn't write this paragraph, but watch the page and plan to clean it up and deepen it in the near future. I would like to know what makes this spam, so I don't make the same mistake. Thanks.Brett epic (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the note Brett. I may have trimmed to much, however I have reveted most of the paragraph. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Microfinance_Gateway.--Hu12 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

David Howe King of Mann

Heraldic is attempting to include a statement he made under Reaction to Claim, which states, The claim has not received much support in the insular media. Two things, this is his opinion and isn't supported under WP:BLP. And, I have just added an article from the Manx Examiner from Mondays edition that has a favourable view of Howe's claim. I'm looking for a second opinion. What is your feeling on this?--Lazydown (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was NOT including, I was reinstating a sentence that Lazydown deleted! There is a very big difference. By the way the article does describe Howe's claim as a delusion. Hardly a ringing endorsement. :-)--Heraldic 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

I'm not exactly sure how do go about getting some things taken off of my biography page that I'd like to be kept out for privacy reasons. Starting with my wife's middle name. It isn't published in any source that I'm aware of. Second, a business I own is part of the biography and the businesses website is being cited as a source and my name is not on the website anywhere. This as well has not been published anywhere I'm aware of and we have received a few nonbusiness calls recently that have come from my biography page. I looked in to some of the policies here and found WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy and it states that "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." And also "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." I've not looked through everything on my biography for privacy but these two jumped out at me right away and neither one of these things have anything to do with my notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofmann (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mrs Howe's middle name may be relevant because a Marie Ahearn has penned some articles covering the Malawi project --Heraldic 13:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

I hate junking up Hu12's talk page here but I don't see how it at all matters Hearldic. Besides, what is the point you are driving at? I would assume that Howe authorized his own press release. Any way, since you can't prove it is one in the same citing any reliable third-party sources, it really doesn't seem like an issue you should be making. I'll be taking care ot the privacy edits requested citing WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. It is a reasonable request under Wikipedia's policies.--Lazydown (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is already posted in the public space by the wife herself, its alowable.--Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If so that would be fine. Where is that posted?--Lazydown (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, Lazydown, you seek to junk up other's talk pages. Evidence of accusing other editors of violating NPOV are on the talk pages of several other editors, including this one. Never once have you come to my talk page to discuss your viewpoints on the article or disagreements with me. Rather, you prefer, as is evidenced in the archives, to go to other's pages to talk about Heraldic, me, and others. Let's at least be honest about our motivations and avoid the seemingly "holier-than-though" attitude. Come on guys, all of us, this has got to stop. This entire article is starting to become embarrasing for Wikipedia, so says several blogs (which, I understand, are not reliable sources). Newguy34 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Newguy34. To be fair, conduct on all sides have been at times inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and does interfere with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. I'll repost a a comment made [77] on 28 December 2007;

(observation in general). It is important to recognise that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only when they are added to articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. There seems to be both "pro and con " occuring, as evidenced by this talk page. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong.

The Media bias is evedent in many of the sources, which are attributable and doesn't suprise me since its rooted in forms of Cultural biass. The subject of David Howe is no doubt a Political one to many, however lets keep these biases out of the article space. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research. While notable minority opinions are welcome when attributable to reliable sources, normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes an issue(s) creates a potential long-term problem by persistently editing a page with information which is not attributable to reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says that the article "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback. Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources. If a consensus cannot be achieved, perhaps it should be attempted through dispute resolution, requests for comment, third opinion, wikiquette alert, or similar means. --Hu12 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be merged?

I think in light of all of this, a reasonable solution to these multiple edits, nasty bickering over contentious material, and privacy concerns is to merge discussion of the claim down to an appropriate size, and move it to another article. I read WP notability policies to be fairly specific that if an individual is only notable for a single event, the focus should be on that event (e.g., the claim, itself) rather than on an otherwise un-notable person. Your thoughts? P.S. I have posed this question on the article's talk page, as well. Newguy34 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Page Protection for my talk page

Could you provide page protection to my talk page. User Newguy34 is attempting to besmirch by character and is being harassing continuing to post on my talk page despite the arbitration request.--Kingofmann (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is not a "blackout period" on discussing the matter, and this request has not been accepted. As can be seen on David's talk page, he has made a legal threat against me and has penned libelous, unsubstantiated claims about me. I have attempted to discuss this with him, but he refuses dispute resolution. Page protection of his talk page is unnesssary, as I have already informed him that I will respect his wishes on this matter. Newguy34 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just blank or archive the section you want removed. See Wikipedia:User page--Hu12 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreal Royal

Please identify what specifically on the site you believe is "harassment". Note that even sites which violate copyright, if they "clean up their act", are subject to un-blacklisting. A compelling argument should be made if permanent blacklisting is to stand. Wjhonson (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AtTask, Inc.

I understand your interest in ensuring spam does not occur - and you are doing fine work. While I, as CEO, personally have a conflict of interest concerning the AtTask page, various others who have contributed content do not. Unfortunately, one of them; vpduric, is not affiliated with our company, but has submitted content very pro-AtTask on our pages and got us bumped after our being on for over a year. Here is my train of thought: There are over 3900 searches for 'Project Management Software' every day on Google. The Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_software) is #2. Wikipedia should be a credible source of information on this subject. All of the companies listed on that page have wiki entries. Many are not as notable as AtTask. Its true that not many people have heard of AtTask, but all of the industry players have - including analysts. For example, to be included in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for project management, a company has to have significant revenues, be audited by Gartner, go through rigorous product evaluation, demonstrate leadership, and have its customer base interviewed by Gartner analysts. Only 20-24 companies are included in the quadrant. Our reference to that was dismissed saying that our name was only mentioned once. However, every company in there is only mentioned once (if at all). In the interest of helping Wiki be a credible source on this subject, can we arrive at a solution that would be acceptable to you? We want to play by the rules, are willing to back up any content posted, and are not even seeking a pro-AtTask position. However, we are VERY interested in participating in what is perceived to be a credible source of information by thousands of people every day by not being removed from Wikipedia. Tell me what you think should change and I'll change it.— Scjnsn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

I believe that a contribution about a topic has more value to the wiki community if that contribution comes from an expert in the field than it would if coming from someone who doesn't write about the same topic. While my contributions to Wiki are not what they could be, I am still interviewed on an almost daily basis on the topics of SaaS, Project Management, and Corporate Performance Management. I also speak at a variety of events attended by CIO's of top Financial Services organizations. My contribs should be ignored because they are all about the topic I know something about? — Scjnsn (talk)

A Community Asset

Hu12, If you would have the followed the external link you hastily proclaimed as spam you would have realized the link was not spam, spam in no way. It will require diligence on you part in order to actually read, opposed to simply deleting links and giving yourself a pat on the back for a job well done! If you would have read any of the pages referenced, you could have avoided making yet another error. You are beginning to develop a history here at Wiki of similar mistakes. The link referenced pages, which contained a significant amount of relevant information on the subject. I understand your self appointed role at Wiki must consume a great amount of your time, If you choose to act in this role please try to act responsibly and contribute as asset to the Wiki community.--Illustr8 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions to wikipedia under Illustr8 consist entirely of adding external links to the sales site baseballbattingcages.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be baseballbattingcages.com related only. Please do not continue adding links to commercial websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account is 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. Please see the welcome page and Wikipedia:Civility. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote baseballbattingcages.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much. I'm amazed at the patience of the anti-spam editors like yourself. I can imagine myself burning out quickly in a role like that.. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SBL

Ive got an archive script ready. I just need a few questions answered first. β^_command 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Id like to see you on IRC. Ive got a lot of tools you might be intrested in. β^_command 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a comment on the BL page re script. The current tools have gotten a little better, but there has to be more efficient ways. Any recomondation on a IRC client? Used mIRC eons ago, not sure if its comparable to others.--Hu12 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I use chatzilla. β^_command 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

As required by Wikipedia this is a notice that I have included you as a party in my request for arbitration [[78]]--Kingofmann (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitelist log

Any idea how to get rid of **** sinebot on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Log? I know someone sorted it on the BL equivalent - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to do that, it doesn't happen on the MediaWiki BL log..Maybe the way its formatted?--Hu12 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No - in which case I think Dirk go rid of it somehow, I'll try him tomorrow - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam link

I noticed you had blacklisted a spam link. Can you please take a look at this and do the same thing for finmath.com? Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found these I'm sure there more;
172.134.174.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
172.163.205.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
172.129.172.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
172.134.128.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Make a request on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist with all the IP's and users spamming the link and I'll add it.--Hu12 (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks. These are all AOL anon IPs so there's really not much use in blocking them. I'll add the request as you asked. Ronnotel (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, BL is the better way than a range block. I'd outright just add the link, but if there is a request to unblock down the road, there will at least be a record of the spam abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tivoli System Automation

Could you pls. explain, why you deleted this article? For me this was a simple technical description of this product, comparable for example to the still existing article of "Ceritas Cluster Service". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tivoli Software exists--Hu12 (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Veritas Software" also exists - and still "Veritas Cluster Server" is allowed to have an own article. This specific Software Solution is even listed in links from the article "High-availability cluster" - so why is it allowed to describe this Software but not a similar solution from Tivoli? What exactly do you think is the difference in the quality of both articles? (By the way - I am BeJost, who wrote the article - but I jsut forgot my password...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Interactive TV

Can you please explain to me why you removed my additions to Interactive TV Advertising? The link that I added to the external links was accidentally incomplete, but the rest of the information was valid/informative within the category of interactive tv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obode7 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Please see the welcome page . Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote brightlineitv.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you keep editing out my insertions for InteractiveTV Today? We are the oldest and only publication in the world focusing on interactive multiplatform television and the central publication for the community. The person managing the Interactive TV page should be an experienced member of its community and that person would recognize our publication and find it an important inclusion. Tracy Swedlow 10:40 11 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.37.80 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

bolchazy.com

Hi, this should not be a black listed link, it is a reputable book publisher. In addition, the entries you deleted in List of Adolf Hitler books should be put back, they are legitimate books, that belong on the list. Thank you. Chessy999 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicted, agree but without the sales links.--Hu12 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All promotional additions were aded by

Accounts

Bolchazy101 (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)
70.142.204.227 (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)
WP:COI and WP:NOT--Hu12 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Vpdjuric

Wikipedia is not a personal battle. It seems that you have been offended by the recent conflict regarding AtTask and that you are taking it personally. It was inappropriate for you to blank User:Vpdjuric's user page. Quoted from Wikipedia:User page, which you linked to:

If you need more pages, you can create subpages. More or less, you can have anything here that you might have on your user or user talk page. (emphasis mine)

and

• A work in progress, until it is ready to be released. This is typically not necessary, though some people do this especially for WP:COI compliance or drafts of a page whose title is protected.

Vpdjuric had clearly posted the content on his user page in an effort to draft a suitable article that met the criteria he was discussing with User:Spryde. This intent is noted on his talk page (see [79]). Please do not continue this pattern of edit-stalking and harrassment. -- Renesis (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so. →Per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages. "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." --Hu12 (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you the sole judge to determine that it was "being used solely for long-term archival purposes"? Why did you bypass MFD? -- Renesis (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

An editor has nominated David Howe (claimant to King of Mann), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious if you were going to give your opinion on this since you created the BLP? I think there are some fairly negative bias views being promoted while recommending it for deletion.--Lazydown (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazydown, be VERY careful of votestacking and inappropriate canvassing (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). Newguy34 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of My.BarackObama.com

I have nominated My.BarackObama.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Prod

I just have a question as to why you prodded Mark Lea Hardy, as well as some other seeming notable articles. The Mark Lea Hardy should not be deleted as he is a highly notable hockey player who played in the National Hockey League for fifteen years. I'm just trying to understand what is going on here. Croat Canuck If I were from Laos, The Laotian Croatian would fit 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

see Oeawiki (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).--Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed I see, but even though he moved the page to Mark Lea Hardy, the article was still a notable article before and after he moved it. I removed the prod from just that article. Croat Canuck If I were from Laos, The Laotian Croatian would fit 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. thanks for the note.--Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

REFLIST

Thanks for adding a reflist to the public access television article! Uh, what is a reflist actually? Thanks again. DavidWJohnson (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See →Template:Reflist--Hu12 (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidWJohnson (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bar chart

Hu12. Please see this diff. I added the link. So it is not advertising. Please self-revert, and return the link. You have removed links I have added before, and it was later determined to be incorrect. I find this to be harassment, and wikistalking. I am not some newbie spammer. If this continues, I will go to WP:ANI. Admins have to follow the wikipedia guidelines and policies, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've explained the multitude of reasons on the talk page, none of those reasons were intended to be directed at you personaly.--Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You deleted a link I added. Those reasons do not apply to me. I have over 11,000 edits on wikipedia. I am not a newbie. So I know a little about wikipedia guidelines and policies.

As for how you communicate with newbies, wikipedia guidelines and policies still apply. I am specifically talking about WP:BITE and WP:STALK. The way you hound newbies who are following the wikipedia injunction to click the edit button and be bold is unseemly. Calling someone a spammer is an insult and thus it is a violation of WP:CIVIL.

The correct thing to say is that they are breaking the conflict of interest guideline WP:COI, and that they should suggest links on the talk page, and not add them themselves if there is a conflict of interest. At no point during your initial communications with them should you call them a spammer. In the real world that is an insult. If after your initial communications they continue to add links in violation of COI, then you can call them a spammer because they now know the WP:COI rule.

I suggest a paragraph or 2 on the spam fighter notice boards explaining these rules of basic civility and politeness. Newbie spam fighters follow your example and the instructions given them. Are there any instructions on politeness on the spam fighter notice boards? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First level spam warnings are Bite?..LOL. It has become apparent that all 3 IP's and the one account are only being used for spamming external links and for self-promotion. Continued Disruptive editing from this individual will result in their websites being blacklisted.

Accounts
80.95.102.226 (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)
195.222.51.114 (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)
89.146.183.253 (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)
Sekretar (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)
--Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Laughing at other people's suggestions is indicative of your attitude toward WP:CIVIL. Have you ever suggested to this person that there is a correct way to get a link added, and not violate WP:COI? Or do you just laugh at them, too, and threaten them, and tell them to do what you say, ... all without pointing out that there is a correct way to get a link added by suggesting it on talk pages? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact you assert a first level warning (which assumes good faith) is WP:BITE and WP:STALK is funny. Have a read;

“ Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.. ” — first level spam warning

Nicely covers everything... However, I question wether you critisism here is in good faith or you have other motives? see Impolite spam fighters & Spam-fighting fanatics support Microsoft and big commercial interests--Hu12 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly causes you to not assume good faith? The fact that I have pointed out these problems before with other spam fighters?

The above first-level warning is different from what you added to Talk:Bar chart. Here is what you added there:

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote qtcharts.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Sekretar and IP's 80.95.102.226, 195.222.51.114,89.146.183.253, consist entirely of adding external links to qtcharts.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be qtcharts.com related only. Please do not continue to add links to your own websites to Wikipedia. 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. Please see the welcome page. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote qtcharts.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At no point in that comment or on any of the other talk pages did you mention that they could avoid WP:COI problems simply by suggesting links on the talk pages of articles. To a newbie it just looks like incivility and an arbitrary abuse of power. So they don't see why the link they are adding is a violation of the external links guideline. This of course angers many people, as do most injustices in this world, and some people then try adding links from anonymous IPs. There is no wikipedia policy against editing as an unregistered user. Then you go and block a bunch of anonymous IPs and anger even more people who aren't even involved. All because you can't politely explain the correct way to suggest a link and not violate WP:COI. I believe the problem is more on your end and not their end as much. They are at fault, but mainly due to ignorance. So help alleviate their ignorance and try being more helpful. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was a smorgusborg of helpful, informative and relative links. Prior to you last comment, you must have overlooked the messages i added yesterday on the 3 IP's talk pages (example above[80]). --Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Those were exactly the talk pages I was referring to previously. Here are direct links to them:

User talk:80.95.102.226

User talk:195.222.51.114

User talk:89.146.183.253

User talk:Sekretar

On none of those user pages did you mention or explain WP:COI, and you did not explain that to avoid COI problems one must suggest links on article talk pages. Even after they looked at the guideline pages you linked to, and politely asked how the link they added violated those guidelines, you did not mention WP:COI.

On Talk:Bar chart you finally mentioned WP:COI. But you have yet to explain to them that under WP:COI rules they can suggest links on the article talk pages. I had to explain that. Why aren't you explaining that, and why aren't you explaining it early on? WP:COI is an easy concept for newbies to understand. It is a lot easier to figure out than WP:EL. It is easy for most of them to accept WP:COI if you provide the correct path for them to possibly get their links on wikipedia by suggesting the links on the article talk pages. As you ask them, you should ask yourself the same question: "You're here to improve Wikipedia?" --Timeshifter (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Columbia surgeons

Yes, they are a problem. I wish PR guys would learn to show some degree of discrimination. See my comment at User Talk:Oeawiki (and a discussion on my user talk.) The ones I left prod tags on i probably wont support unless here is more info. DGG (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DDG. What are your thoughts on the Images. Seems their plucked sraight from this alpha listing [81] .--Hu12 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they looked pretty obvious, but in the edit summaries he asserts the owner having licensed them by GFDL. If he didnt get the formalities right someone who knows should remind him.

BTW, you might want to reconsider the speedy on American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. It doesnt read to me like spam, and it's a real and major organization that undoubtedly can be documented. DGG (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored--Hu12 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert on King of Mann

I'm sorry you did not welcome my efforts to participate in the AfD on David Howe, or in reverting 'King of Mann' (originally, and appropriately, simply a list of rulers) to the form it held before it was tainted by the David Howe OR. You'll note that CarbonLifeForm had encouraged me to 'be bold.' in talk there. Do you intend to revert all my efforts to clean up those pages? Let me know, and I'll save my efforts. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning biased POV editing does not translate into blanking content indiscrimantly. Perhaps pointing to alledged problem areas on the talk page of the article in question is a prefferd, neutral method and allowing established editors familiar with content inclusion policies to determine what (if any) needs to be edited. thanks. --Hu12 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I did that; see last talk section on that article and respond there? 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Microfinance

Hi Hu12:

You just reverted a brief list of non-commercial, information-only external links from a microfinance article I posted. The article I posted replaces a much less coherent one that had a much longer list of external links. I have already shortened it, but what is left is links that are useful to the reader interested in learning more about this topic.Brett epic (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you just trashed an article in 5 minutes that has taken me 6 months of reflecting in the field, followed by research and writing that took several days. There were serious problems with the existing article, including a chronic tendency on the part of every microfinance practitioner in the world to write little blurbs about their own MFI that added nothing and didn't integrate. I have been thinking about how to put up an article that would be immune to this kind of piecemeal death by a thousand cuts. I have discussed this with Siobhan Hansa, who has experienced similar frustrations. This article is based on current research, has copyright permission, supported by a letter to Wikipedia, from one of the most influential authors in the field, and creates a framework that is far more difficult to commercialize. I hope you reconsider your decision.Brett epic (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi bret, that large of a change and the fact it reads much like advocacy for certain authors ect, should be discussed on the talk page first. IMHO read like an POV advert.--Hu12 (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What is IMHO?Brett epic (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion. you should realy get Siobhan Hansa to work with you. No question it needs improvement--Hu12 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Advert? If you want to see an advert, try microcredit (8 adverts there, I think). Or how about Association for Social Advancement or FINCA or Village Banking? I could go on but I won't. We agree there is a problem with advertising. I have no axe to grind and no NGO to sell. If you were really concerned about NPOV you'd be dealing with the blatant self-promotion everywhere in the microcredit section, which is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You've brought back a lot of references to individual NGOs and that random passage on India by reverting my changes. Have fun with the article. I told Siobhan I would fix it and she encouraged me, but I've had enough of it. Deal with it yourself.70.54.53.95 (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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.