Jump to content

User talk:A. B./February 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of February 2008. Exchanges spilling over from late January or into early March may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form.

Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.


Note: many of these were archived out of chronological order!

[edit]

Protection

[edit]

Please un-protect Yuwie, Yuwie itself is not spam. Spammers should be banned, Not Yuwie pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharadjalota456 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the various articles, they have been repeatedly recreated by various editors, most of them single purpose accounts. I'm not sure the network is prominent enough in any event to meet our Notability Guideline's specific guidelines for coverage in independent media. I did a complete Google News search and found only one article[1]; this article was discussing whether it was a pyramid scheme and spam generator doomed to failure.
See:
It's inappropriate to create articles about organizations with which you have a close relationship or to add links to these articles with your personal referral codes as you did.
Cheers, --A. B. (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Checking a little further, it looks like there are a lot of pages on the web talking about what a scam Yuwie is. I'm surprised you'd want to promote something like this. --A. B. (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another link:
--A. B. (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for yur time, but there is an article on the BBC. [2] They don't say it is a scam. Your google search merely show websites testing Yuwie, and proving it is not a scam.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharadjalota456 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 February 2008

Vandal's talk page

[edit]

I tried to leave a message on User talk:69.205.8.94?. While he is suspected of vandalism, his edits to another article, Caledonian-Record weren't quite in that league. Annoying and persistent but not quite over the top. I could not leave him a message because his existing page (not my subsection!) contained blacklisted links. Finally, in disgust, I erased the whole page, having spent about 10 minutes trying to edit out the problem links. This was not a great solution, but allowed new messages to be posted without harassment. I was about to (belatedly) explain my delete when I discovered that you restored the page. While I Don't disagree with your doing that, it does not solve the problem. No normal editor (not an admin) can communicate with this guy.

I tried complaining to the powers that be to skip checking blacklinks on discussion pages, but never got an answer. I hope you can suggest a solution that is workable. I don't mind editing out one or two of HIS old blacklisted links, but editing out a whole bunch of them just does not seem like a profitable use of my time. Just in order to leave him a new message which does not contain any mention of a blacklisted link. So I did NOT use a blacklisted link myself. Sorry to hit you over the head with this but I don't think that whoever set up this blacklink thing has thought through all the ramifications. Thanks.Student7 (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I helped set up the whole thing, so my head's as good a target as any. And, no, I did not think through every thing at the time. Nowadays, if we think the links will probably soon be blacklisted, we won't leave live links (i.e., with the "http://"). Otherwise, we do still leave links since it's the best way to track stuff, then delete them at the time of blacklisting. Also back then, we had no local blacklist -- just the meta blacklist for all of Wikimedia and it was hard to get someone there to blacklist links for us. Now we have a local blacklist that applies just to the English language Wikipedia and the meta blacklist is much more accommodating (plus I'm now an admin there). So we get quick responses on blacklisting.
Meanwhile, there are all the hundreds of IP talk pages out there like this one with old warnings and live links that were later blacklisted. There haven't been too many problems since most spammers change IPs and user names. Unfortunately, this guy's different and has stuck with the same IP, presenting you with this problem.
So I'm sorry I caused you this frustration. Maybe there should be a barnstar for dunces (a duncestar?). --A. B. (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny! I'm glad they don't have duncestars. I would have cornered the market on them by now! (Would have plenty to hand out I guess!  :) As the system gets more complicated it gets harder and harder to retrofit changes, I'm sure. You just answered a question I had about articles vs discussion/user:talk pages - hard to separate. The web crawlers apparently can't distinguish either. So long term, single edit user sandboxes turn up in the search results as well. As you suggest, I just have to ignore some people. This former vandal (who is trying to progess BTW) may be one of them. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw he had all those edits to articles' external links sections after my warning so I checked them out. Interestingly, when I checked him out, he was purging his competitors' links from articles, not adding new ones. That's OK with me, if the articles' other editors did not object, which they did not seem to do; I assume that means those others were spammy, too.
We don't know for sure that the current user of that IP is the same guy. Someone may have reset their cable or DSL modem meaning that now the IP's been reassigned to another home. Even if it is our spammer, I looked at the IP's Caledonian-Record edits and they all looked like good faith edits. If he's not spamming, I suggest you treat him (or the new user of the IP) as if they'd never spammed before -- i.e., just like any other good-faith editor. He may need some coaching on using the article's talk page, edit summaries, etc. --A. B. (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point! I will use the talk page for future discussions. Hadn't occurred to me that the editor might be a different person. Makes sense. I usually clutter up the edit summaries anyway. Student7 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've always got to ponder that question (IP reassignment) when trying to figure out what to do with an IP that's problematic. --A. B. (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please block User:Aryavartjewelry1

[edit]

It is a Spam account created to promote a company by the same name. Special:Contributions/Aryavartjewelry1 Regards Igor Berger (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver blocked the account. Igor, why don't you try out Twinkle for some of this vandalism-related stuff? It makes reporting, reverting, and warning a lot easier. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 10:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe after my vacation. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blacklisted the associated domain; see:
In my experience, people that see a monetary advantage to spamming us are seldom deterred by blocking -- they just keep developing new user names. Blacklisting their domains works much better. In fact, I seldom block spammers -- if their behaviour is bad enough to warrant blocking and they've received several warnings, then I just blacklist domains and leave the accounts alone. This makes it easier to keep track of any future misbehaviour (as opposed to driving them to new sockpuppet accounts we're not tracking).
Thanks for flagging this. Any time you see that a spammer has received several warnings and is still spamming, fee free to request blacklisting:
--A. B. (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from SEOlogy CEO

[edit]

Dear A. B.,

My name is Natan Birenboim, I'm the CEO of SEOlogy.co.il, a leading white-hat SEO company in Israel which optimizes the websites of large, notable organizations in Israel and abroad.

A few days ago I've found out that most of our clients, including ourselves, are listed on Wikipedia's Blacklist. After investigating the issue, I have sadly realized that one of our employees abused Wikipedia by pushing links to his own private websites into several entries, ignoring Wikipedia's rules and warnings, disregarding our policies.

If this issue would have been brought to my attention, I would have made sure immediately that it doesn't happen again. But since I haven't personally gotten a warning, there was no way I could have known about the issue.

I have just fired the employee responsible for this disgrace. I request that our company's clients' legitimate websites be delisted from Wikipedia's blacklist immediately.

Here is the list of sites that I request to be delisted:

www.fancydiamonds.net
www.hadassah.org.il
www.fts-soft.com
www.orange.co.il
www.seology.co.il
www.wao.co.il
www.3dvsystems.com
www.africa-israel.co.il
www.arkia.co.il
www.caesarstone.com
www.cognifit.co.il
www.e-mindfitness.com
www.eldan.co.il
www.gemini.co.il
www.hadasit.co.il
www.hertz.co.il
www.idit-technologies.com
www.mainsoft.com
www.meitav.co.il
www.optier.com
www.optonol.com
www.ortal-hr.co.il
www.prepwizard.com
www.reliable.co.il
www.shahal.co.il
www.shomreymishkal.co.il
www.silentium.com
www.tambour-paint.com
www.verlain.com
www.verlain.co.il
www.verlain.fr

Please let me know how we can proceed.


Regards,

Natan Birenboim,
SEOlogy CEO
natan@seology.co.il
972-77-3330186/7

I'll look at it later today or tomorrow. --A. B. (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a centralized discussion at:
--A. B. (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my response on the centralized discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.169.244 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dmoz

[edit]

Hello. I see your vote at the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Template:Dmoz. Can you vote ({{keep}} or {{???????}}) on page — ru:?????????:?_????????/5_???????_2008#.D0.A8.D0.B0.D0.B1.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.BD:Dmoz

Best regards, nejron (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our Canvassing Guideline. --A. B. (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see... Sorry, I will not do any canvassing more and I will change my exist comments. Best regards, nejron (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining a little further: I have an ru.wikipedia account, but I use it only for cross-wiki spam removal and I speak no Russian. If you are asking me to support keeping a template similar to our {{dmoz}}, then I certainly think such templates are a very good idea. Often we'll remove a bunch of spam from an article, then add a {{dmoz}} and tell people to add their links to dmoz. Nevertheless, I don't feel like I'm a "real" member of the ru.wikipedia community and it would be inappropriate for me to comment there. I know I would certainly be concerned if someone ignorant of English began commenting at our deletion discussions.
I don't know ru.wikipedia's practices with regards to canvassing; on en.wikipedia, canvassing like this would almost certainly backfire. --A. B. (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also see you're still leaving notes. I think you should go back and strike out all your earlier canvassing notes with a brief explanation. I'm not trying to be a "hard-ass" here -- I'm just concerned about the integrity of the processes both here and on ru.wikipedia as well as potentially helping you and your template keep out of trouble.
Regards, --A. B. (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not still leaving notes, I changed my exist note, see — http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABjfs&diff=189248221&oldid=189239263
Ok, I will strike out my earlier canvassing notes. Best regards, nejron (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I noticed you left a note at User:Calltech instead of on Calltech's talk page (I sometimes make the same mistake). I took the liberty of moving it to User talk:Calltech. --A. B. (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Best regards, nejron (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good luck with your template. --A. B. (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


BL

[edit]

Would you review MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#noooxml.org. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --A. B. (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some odd patterns with the IPs
An open proxy/zombie PC indicates bad faith; on the other hand none of the others appear on any Internet blacklists. If the other IPs are legit, that indicates multiple editors 4 different countries are adding this link.
--A. B. (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My instincts tell me this is probably better suited for XLinkbot since there are apparently editors that think this has relevance in terms of criticism of Microsoft. --A. B. (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do thanks for the detailed input!!--Hu12 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You do a lot around here and I still have a backlog of favours I owe you. --A. B. (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re www.andrewblechman.com/learn_more.html

[edit]

G'day A.B. I was wondering if you could reconsider your declined decision at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist please. I've left a couple of messages there but not sure if you have the page on watch. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're all set. --A. B. (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

[edit]
Also, about my username; so far only one or two people have mistaken it for a sockpuppet reference. If that changes, I'm open to changing my username; however, for now I'd like to keep this one as I've been editing for two years with it. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!? 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The username is a little thing and if everybody else is happy, I'm happy.
Congratulations -- you earned this. --A. B. (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot 2

[edit]

You posted a neutral and a support in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot 2. I decided against boldly indenting the neutral since you made no comment about changing to support. User:Dorftrottel 15:40, February 11, 2008

Thanks for flagging this. I fixed my mistake and indented the comment. --A. B. (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

[edit]

Hi A. B., I see you became an admin while I was off line. Sorry I didn't get an opportunity to show my support, but know that I would have (not that you needed it!). Lucky Wikipedia :-). -- SiobhanHansa 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My Wikibreak

[edit]

Hello my friend. Just wanted to let you know I have decided to take an extended wikibreak. My family and I have several vacations coming up, and there's lots of things I'll be doing in the real world. And quite frankly, the trolls (and other's tolerance of them) have been making this hobby less than fun lately.

I was wondering if wouldn't mind keeping an eye on my talk page while I'm away. I hate the thought of some obnoxious vandalism sitting there until I get back, and there might be a legitimate issue posted you could help out with. (I'm leaving the exact same message with Hu12.) If you need to reach me, I'll be checking email from time to time.

So keep up the great work, and hopefully I'll see you in a few months. Thanks. — Satori Son 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've got you covered. Enjoy Arenal -- but watch where you go!
--A. B. (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]
One of my favorite pictures
 Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was happy to support you -- congratulations. --A. B. (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Spam blacklist

[edit]

Awesome, thanks! --AW (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I moved somewhat unrelated comments subsequently posted here about quasimodobell.com's blacklisting to a section of its own below:
I left a brief comment there then opened a broader discussion at:
--A. B. (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more

[edit]

Special:Contributions/4.238.124.3 —BoL 05:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm signing off for now. You can get another admin to block him or you can just let him fume and sputter a bit. I suggest you let him have his say if he can do it without disrupting our articles. Otherwise, he's just going to keep resetting his IP address and getting madder and crazier every time. I recommend just not engaging with him and let him argue with himself on that talk page for a while.
There is also the possibility of blocking a range of IPs that might work. However, it's easy to screw that up if you don't know how to do it and I don't. (We've had admins block whole countries by mistake before).
I'm sorry I can't help more, but I'm traveling and I've really got to go.
If there continue to be problems that really must be addressed, then take it to WP:ANI (not WP:AIV).
--A. B. (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I'll let him play around for a while, let someone else deal with him. —BoL 06:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited's RFA

[edit]


I was happy to support you and I know you'll do a good job. (Just don't fiddle with protecting or deleting the Main page for your first few days). --A. B. (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

AB - First of all, I'm in no way related to this site or fan club etc. Just an impartial editor. If you'll read the discussion page on this article, it is made clear that the link to the fan club is clearly sanctioned by the band. The "Asia Fan Club President" has clearly made some shady attempts at adding it, but the consensus among other editors participating in the discussion, is that the link should be included in the article, and "Asia Fan Club" has provided a page from the official band biography listing it as a web resource. I'd like to request that, despite the obviously ridiculous spam-like techniques (including his attempt to redirect the site to circumvent blacklisting) used by the guy who runs the site, that it be removed from the blacklist, so it can be added back to the article. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given your past involvement, you may be interested in contributing to a new discussion at Talk:Asia (band)#Proposal to re-insert certain external links. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Frankie Falcone

[edit]

Didn't even know it hadn't been done ... took care of it with a redirect, hope this helps. Blueboy96 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should also merge any unique content from the AfD article into the target article. --A. B. (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!

[edit]

Whatever help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. How much more progress needs to be made on the Shane Osborn page before we can remove the flags? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxdana1000 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tied up with other things now. You might ask for help at:
Thanks for your work on this.
--A. B. (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


re:AfD

[edit]

Thanks for your notification about bNet (or, rather "B.net") - I've added a comment. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


quasimodobell.com

[edit]

Dear Sir, I am representing a Greek company that create quasimodobell.com I was asked by my client to review your answer about his proposal to remove his from wiki black list today, and also i was informed that you mentioned other sites we created in your post.

First. I do not own quasimodobell. My client does, I only created it. I do not own all the other sites you mention except my company domain and two more that absolutely nothing to do with quawsimodobell. I dont/cant tell my customer how to use his website. I dont post in wikipedia. I never did and i am not interested in. You refer to my company site and other sites we have created in your answer. You also give some google adsense ID. Different from those in quasimodobell ownen by different people. What are you doing???? If the owner of quasimodobell is spamming or doing anything you dont agree with, resolve it with him. His email and contact information can be found in his site. You dont want him posting in wiki? Did he spam? Then add him to your blacklist. Whats the point of reffering to other sites we have created for our customers and our company sites. Do you understand that you are attacking different persons? You refer to a greel blog, a greek web design company, a blog with nothing to do with quasimodobell, a greek classifileds website and a internet niche directory. Did this sites spam wikipedia? Did you find any link or post in wikipedia to this websites? Absolutely not. Please remove all our links and references that have nothing to do with wikipedia COMPLETELY before we have to take legal actions against you personally.

Starfish.gr PK.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.250.225 (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PK:
I am very concerned about your comments and want to make sure I've done the right thing. Please understand that we get comments all the time from not-so-innocent spammers insisting they did not spam or that their domains were not related. At the same time, we also make mistakes. When everyone is using pseudonyms or anonymous IPs, it's often difficult to sort out these claims.
I am copying your response to:
in order to get additional opinions there and have others review my actions.
I will respond further to your comments there. If you wish to make additional comments, it would be best to make them there, since they will also be seen by others reviewing my actions.
--A. B. (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

[edit]

re:[3]. You realy need to start an essay (time permitting), thats wonderful stuff!--Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Archive note -- see also: User talk:A. B./April 2008#Talk:Asia (band).

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B./February_2008&oldid=1085728511"