User talk:Adam.Heman

May 2009

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Fund of funds. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Quaeler (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Private equity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. This is a roll-up for all the spam showered by this time stamp. Quaeler (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domain-tracking

mastersuniverse.net: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.mastersuniverse.net
Adam.Heman (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)

Google AdSense ID: 0499570413920187 --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

PLEASE HOLD ON Before any action is taken against this editor, Adam.Heman, I would first like an explanation as to why the edits of Adam.Heman to the Private equity and Fund of funds articles are anything other than inexperienced good faith edits. A few steps seem to be missing above, and this in itself is suspicious. So before any further action is taken, an explanation is in order! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. For the admin:
- Editor Quaeler's revert at Fund of funds
- Editor Quaeler's revert at Private equity

No actions have been taken, he hasn't edited since the 30th. Leave this here for future reference if you notice an admin has blocked him, but he is not currently going to be blocked. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted links (outright and 'references') as they are to a site which is blog-like in nature (and so fails #11 on WP:ELNO), and as i believe there's no coincidence between the editor's name choice and the site/domain name, there is likely a COI / interest in promotion going on as well.

It could very well be the case that it is purely coincidence, and his run of shilling on 11 articles was really a good faith, albeit erred, edits; if this is the case, he has not been blocked and may continue on as a learned editor at Wikipedia. If they were bad faith edits, he's been sufficiently warned and will be plausibly blocked after one more misstep. Either way, there appears to be no imminent action against him pending at this time, one week later, and so i'm unclear on what is precipitating the current panic. Quaeler (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the "panic" but I wasn't able to figure out:

Why the link in question is any more a bit of "spam" than any of the other external links on the pages,
Why you did at first consider the new editor merely inexperienced and treated him thusly, but then you
Went from step one to Final Warning so quickly.

Vandalism blocks are serious things, and it seems as if some do not treat them seriously enough. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 01:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) I'm the flavour of editor which seeks to prevent new broken windows in the ghetto, not the type which leads revitalization projects (at least not for most articles).

(2/3.) I warned first, then took a gander at what else the editor had been up to. When i saw the deluge of other similar behaviour, i jumped levels.

... and i say tomahto, let's call the whole thing off. If, once tired of his advertising career, this editor returns to make months and months of contributions to Wikipedia, i will profusely apologize to you for my coal-tinted glasses view. Quaeler (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different strokes (and flavours) for different folks. I would ask only that you consider that such a flavour might be so distasteful to a new and potentially serious editor that he might leave Wikipedia with a very bad taste in his mouth. It's all up to you, of course. This Adam.Heman appears to have a very short editing contribution history thus far – merely 18 edits. Like me, he has a lot to learn. At any rate, you may certainly consider this event and issue "called off". And thank you very much for your civil elucidation! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]