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.
Hello. Remember ol Libsy... the staunch 156.X IP who would never have an account :-D . Well... almost a full year since I have clan'd back up with this goofy little username... I need your help with a link (just like ol times) A while ago a few Wikipedians, in their grandest brilliance, AfD'd an article for an amateur webzine called "The Metal Observer" deeming it unworthy of a Wiki page and a link that not offer anything to Wikipedia readers. It was also rejected as a reliable source and has not been added to the WP:ALBUM's list of approved music review sites (for several reasons similar to the reasons it was turfed in the first place) Problem in, here lies the favour, The link to this atrosous little site is still filtering onto Wikipedia fairly frequently. The link is http://www.metal-observer.com. Any chance we can get it mothballed onto the "list of should not be's?" Thanks! Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link has been re-discussed and re-rejected at the WP:RS noticeboard as a reliable source. One user involved int he discussion was blocked for edit warring trying to persistently re-add the fanspam into numerous articles (that user has since announced that he has quit over not being able to add the link) A few other users known for trying to use this site, either as an external link or as a bogus reference, are still drifting about. The Real Libs-speak politely15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comments on User_talk:Peanutcactus and their contribs, he seems to be a very enthusiastic wikilinker to Crackle. I don't know that it quite crosses the line to spam, but you have more expertise at the subject. Certainly this is getting close to the line, if not over it. tedder (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the links you removed from the Primary Lateral Sclerosis article
You removed links to the Spastic Paraplegia Foundation (http:// sp-foundation.org) for the Primary Lateral Sclerosis (PLS) page. The Spastic Paraplegia Foundation (SPF) is the only organization world wide that provides patients with support and information on PLS. It is a non-profit organization that raises money for research, having raised over $2M in the past 5 years.
The SPF is on par with ALS and NINDS (in fact NINDS links to SPF), and provides on-going support through its YAHOO groups.
I would very much appreciate you restoring the links to
sp-foundation.org, Spastic Paraplegia Foundation, PLS/HSP Support
Hello, Hu12/Archive7, and thank you for your contribution with articles related to the works of Lemony Snicket. I'd like to invite you to become a member of the Lemony Snicket task force, a task force aiming to improve coverage of Lemony Snicket and related articles on Wikipedia.
Much of what I find is from pages previously bookmarked that notoriously attract spamming, digging through recent changes and re-checking old cases from the WikiProject Spam archives. There are some link-spamming script tools on IRC for the spam project (forgot the url), however most of what I do is good old fasioned footwork. Wikipedia is spammed so much, you'll easily many in the "recent changes", that have not triggered the abuse log. Keep up the hunt!.--Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikigender.org
Hi, I am writing to request that Wikigender be taken off the Wikipedia spam blacklist. I realise that when Wikigender was placed on the blacklist, the founders - without realising Wikipedia protocols - sent unsollicited emails. They have attempted I believe unsuccessfully to be removed from the blacklist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikigender#Spam_email Wikigender is, like Wikipedia, an information sharing platform dedicated to gender equality. There will be no further emails sent and Wikigender promises to act in accordance with Wikipedia protocols in the future, and apologises for the earlier incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.242.218 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them, or in response to site-representatives' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages.
Background including "spamming" Wikipedia email accounts:
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. Links to this site were repeatedly added despite the obvious community disapproval. Wikipedia email accounts were also spammed. Rationale for alowing such a link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage particularly when it also clearly Fails Wikipedia's core content policies. Declined Wikipedia is still not a place to to promote this site.--Hu12 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me how the reference to the PRO AV survey on Digital signage vendors, which you deleted today, fails WP:RS and WP:V. I agree it's perhaps not a terribly precise bit of information, and could be worded better, but I'm not sure it's quite that bad! Barnabypage (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Center for Responsible Travel AfD template points to Travelers' Philanthropy. I'd fix it but I just discovered I don't know how. Best, CliffC (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My god, thanks for that huge amount of work regarding the extreme abuse surveys and ResearchEditor's socks on the spam blacklist! I was about to start reading the instruction pages when I noticed it had been done already. Greatly appreciated! WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome! If you see them attempting to subvert the blacklist with alternate URLS, let me know and we'll add them. Also, be sure to clean you userpage of the now blacklisted link ritualabuse.us, youve got 3 on there. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch of the off-wiki canvassing (definatly a no-no). abusearticles.wordpress.com was added with the others. Be aware they may create new domains in order to try and circumvent the blacklist, if some are found be sure to let me know and we'll add them. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't take the credit, someone else on the ANI posting caught it. I'll keep an eye out for the new domains, so far keeping track has been more a matter of remembering to do so than finesse. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you closed a whitelist request that I had reopened
While checking a spam report (where I noticed your great work), I stumbled across a situation that may need attention, but I don't want to blunder in given that I really have no idea, and I'm hoping you will know what to do. This relates to what is reasonable to put on a user page (not related to spam). User talk:Smileyhill shows a collapsed section, but if you view the wikitext you find 713 lines of bash script. Should I politely talk to the user (who is an "alternate account")? I'll watch for any reply here, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May want to bring this up at WP:ANI, to get a broader consensus. This seems to be a script to hack WEP networks (even says it may be illegal), clearly exceeds the purpose of WP:USERPAGE, and falls way outside the scope of this project. It should be deleted. Good catch.--Hu12 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this investigation is winding down, I was wondering if you were willing to discuss a few explore links and citations that I feel may have been put up in an inappropriate way, but in content are valuable to the Wikipedia project.
Best, Badums (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. This is one such case.
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. It has become apparent that your accounts are only being used for self-promotion. Attempting to exploit Wikipedia through use of deceptive means for the primary purpose of self-promotion is a serious matter. There has been significant disruption, abuses and major breaches of policy. I think it inapropriate and entirely unreasonable for your continued Source soliciting for explore.org's inclusion. If you continue in pursuit of this point, you will be blocked for Disruption. I suggest you find other constructive, non-conflicting ways to contribute to Wikipedia. There is nohing more to discuss.--Hu12 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I guess it's beating a dead horse to say again, but the other accounts are not mine and I was unaware of all the previous warnings. I prefer to iron out issues on talk pages instead of just going ahead and trying edit without the input of concerned parties, so please bear with me. Accusations of using multiple accounts aside, I would like to take issue with the mass deletions of relevant citations and links associated with explore. I wanted to see if you were willing to discuss three or four unique instances. I don't agree that I have violated the COI guidelines on self promotion. If you are not willing to discuss them with me, I will ask the opinion of a non-involved third party. I really hate to bother you, especially because you do so much for the Wikipedia community. However, I would like to pursue this point with you in an amicable way and I don't feel that I should be blocked just for disagreeing with you. Thanks for your time, and I hope I'm not annoying you, - Badums (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question re: the spam blacklist
Is there anyway to 'bot-remove' all the metal-observer links? For as long as I have been here (feels like 40 years!!!) I am completely bot-impaired. If I had time to manually remove them all I would (you know I would :-D ) But time is just not available in this rainy summer. The Real Libs-speak politely22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was talk of one, but am unaware of one. This will have to be done the oldfasioned way, link-by-link.--Hu12 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So today I am busting up "MO links. And along the way I am finding this little gem. link. The website is being added and a lot of the time the words "Sea of Tranquility" are wiki-linked. Seeing a "blue" link has thrown me off (because I haven't had near enough coffee) so I ignored it. But it daawn on me that the Sea of Tranquility could be a lunar typey thingy ... and I was right. Anyway to BL this link? Thee are only 170+/- of them. (I am deleting them along the way) The Real Libs-speak politely15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you are supposed to enter *.seaoftranquility.org like this. That finds "seaoftranquility.org" as well as "www.seaoftranquility.org" and anything else. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been removing the Metal observer links. There are still about 500 left, but the majority of them seem to be non mainspace. Do you think it is ok to add it to the SBL now? The abuse is ongoing and severe. Triplestopx316:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Hu12, This is Gene14, I am an officer of www.e-admission.edu.cn. We are an official non-profit organization that offer online recruitment service to China Universities and Schools. We have the authority from the University for online recruitment. May be you have noticed that our domain name is 'edu.cn and in China only university and official educational organization can use this domain name. We hope you can remove our websites from the spam blacklist and allow us to put our link about the universities on relative pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene14 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-officers' requests, or to those who where involved in mass spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. It has become apparent that your accounts are only being used for self-promotion. Attempting to exploit Wikipedia for the primary purpose of self-promotion is a serious matter. There has been significant disruption, abuses and major breaches of policy. In addition to the abuse, e-admission.edu.cn is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your recruitment service.--Hu12 (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just declined (and removed) a speedy deletion tag you placed on the above-captioned article. It was indeed involved in an articles for deletion process, found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonfly CMS, but the result of that AfD was "keep". I'm not saying the article is bulletproof, just that I cannot delete it for the reason given in the tag. If you do feel the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, you may want to look at WP:Deletion review. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, and my apologies for your extra trouble. I've deleted the page in question. I feel a bit foolish in that I actually did suspect that something like that might have happened, but I think I foolishly searched for Dragonfly CMS (second nomination) instead of the correct spelling of "2nd". I had a look and there doesn't seem to have been any improvement or indeed much alteration, as you noted. Thanks for your courtesy in dealing with my silly mistake. Accounting4Taste:talk15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buzz Bites
Hi Hu12:
I came across the articles for deletion discussion page for Buzz Bites. I have significantly improved the article since you nominated the article for deletion and have added numerous sources to the article. I don't know if Wikipedia procedure allows you to cancel your nomination for deletion, but I was hoping something can be done about the article due to its significant improvements. --Pink Bull (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While your efforts were meritorious and notable, Buzz Bites aren't. I've added my position in light of your changes. --Hu12 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Familytreedna
I noticed (and reverted) some recent linkspam that added an old favorite (familytreedna.com). That led me to Harris Surname DNA Project which has a large list of spam in External links, and quite bit more throughout the article. Do you think it would be worth nominating the article at AFD? I'm hesitant because I suspect it would be hard to explain WP:GNG to those who like genealogy. Meanwhile, I was thinking of removing the harrisdna.com link in the lead, and leaving it as the only EL. Any thoughts? (no talkback needed) Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The EL's certainly need trimming. The article itself has some inapropriate linking also. This may be a candidate for redirection to a parent article, as it just being a Surname DNA Project, may not be notable for its own article. Puting the article up for AFD, however, may be a good idea in order to get broader community consensus. --Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Nude celebrities on the Internet
Hi Hu12, so as not to upset things any further, I'm not going to add any more links to my journal. I hope the WikiProject_Spam#Inertia_Magazine_Spam can be removed, since Inertia is an actual journal. Sorry for any inconvenience the link adding caused. Thks... Beachbum bh (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You edit warred to restore the links. Please stop. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Now that you admit it's your journal, its clearer than ever that this is spam. Triplestopx320:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case spam is defined not so much by the content of the site, as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. quire a bit of links are on the project, would be interesting if any were added by high-volume, trusted editors or just spam only accounts.--Hu12 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You removed an external link which you labelled as spam. The link is to a biographical article on Akande. The article may be a bit POV but is an important resource for this Wikipedia entry. It is definitely not spam. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IUPHAR
Hello Hu12. I've noticed that you have been reverting external links on science pages, linking to sites associated with IUPHAR. I'm not the person who put those links there, and I realize they may have been put there in a way that looks like spamming, but they are actually not spam at all. These are very well-respected (in scientific circles) RS sites, containing useful information. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. Additionaly Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM, and these links were not added to support or reference encyclopedic content, rather as external links. There are currently 488 links to this site none of which validly reference article content. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of content. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. We don't need to link to every site in existence that meets a certain criterion. sure the internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content. Here are just a few Mass Spamming examples. Flikr /129.215.142.105 / 129.215.239.166. --Hu12 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute what you say about the way the links were added. But I did revert you at the pages that I watch, on the basis that these are links that are very useful and do relate directly to article content, and would be uncontroversial, if they had been added individually and manually. As long as you understand why I (and maybe other editors?) will revert you case-by-case and on the merits, then OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: It may not be obvious, but IUPHAR has databases for each of the biomolecule families in question. Therefore, each of the external links (at least each of those at which I have looked so far) goes to the database for the subject of that particular page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments of "useful" or "related" do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. Ie.Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. These links are only truly useful in an encyclopedia if they are added to support encyclopedic content. Linking deliberatly to each family, as was done in this case, is the policy reasoning why Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Additionaly a closer look at the IP's would indicate this organization is also in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Links do notadd content or meaning to the encyclopedia, but rather direct readers away from the project. Perhaps if these links are used as valid citations in support of our encyclopedic pages, one could make a convincing argument that they actualy improve Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I follow that reasoning ad absurdum, then there should be no external links sections at the end of any articles. Anyway, I do not disagree with you at all about what you say about the way in which the links were added in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tryptofish that the added IUPHAR links are directly relevant to the articles in question and are not spam. There is plenty of precedent for including such links in info boxes (see for example {{Enzyme}}, {{Protein}}, and {{Pfam box}}). I have taken the liberty to create the following templates:
The advantage of using these templates is that the rendered text would automatically include a internal wiki link to IUPHAR to give the reader some idea what kind of information is contained in the external link. Comments and suggestions about these templates are welcome. Unless there are strong objections, I will start including these templates in receptor articles. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we all agree that these links are so relevant, then maybe not having them as external links, but as references to draw information from would maybe be an even better solution. It is certainly not a reason to let IPs add such links massive amounts of such links, those should be reverted and each should be evaluated. Just my 2p. --Dirk BeetstraTC20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Dirk is correct, but it's so much easier to add links. How many pages on good science sites exist? Should there be an external link to every such page? Of course if useful content is added to an article, a supporting link is great. But mass-added links must be resisted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be an external link to every such page? Of course not, there should only be links to external sites that are highly relevant to the subject of the particular Wikipedia article, and in this case, links from receptor pages to the IUPHAR receptor database are highly relevant and useful. Also there seems to be a "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality at work here. I agree that mass adding of external links from an unregistered IP is suspect. However in this particular case, there is a precise one-to-one mapping of Wikipedia receptor pages to corresponding pages in the IUPHAR database. Each of these links is equally relevant and useful. So if one is useful, the rest are likely to be useful. So I would argue that in this particular case, each link should be evaluated before it is reverted rather than after.
A better long term solution may be to include these IUPHAR links in the {{Protein}} and {{GNF_Protein_box}} templates (see example info box to the right which includes an IUPHAR link). Of course this would only work for the individual receptor articles and not for receptor family articles. Boghog2 (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog2, yes, that is indeed a much better solution, and I think that that should be examined now (to put it in the appropriate infobox). However, that does not excuse the behaviour of a couple of Single Purpose Accounts, who find their (?) link so important that they link it without further discussion. And they do link inappropriately, see diff (see also is not the place, the link appears to be about 5-HT3B, or HTR3B, not about HTR3A (I may be mistaken, I am not a specialist in this specific type of 'chemistry', it may be the same, or just the closest), and at the moment I can't check because their database kicks me out), others . This is indiscriminate addition, and Hu12 is completely right in removing them all indiscriminately. Other readers, like you, can then, on a case-by-case-basis, add them back (as you said you did, above), though if the link is really good, it is more suitable as a reference, or as a link in a proper infobox.
Hu12 and I, and some others, have been long around in this business, and have seen all sides. If I examine this, then I am afraid that there is a good deal of COI involved here. With such organisations, linking to themselves, I have seen boths sides of the medal. There are editors around here which are very helpful in providing their information, they discuss, they discriminate well where their information is of interest and where not. However, we've also seen everal organisations whose only purpose here is to promote their (even non-profit) organisation. Also they are interested in higher Google rankings and being linked from everywhere possible just to get people to their site (if only for sometimes stupid reasons like that the webmaster needs to show that people actually visit their site, so they need more money for webservers or to show that they is actually doing their job good; unfortunately ). I am not saying that this is one of those cases, but it is simply better to avoid any suggestion that it might.
I would suggest to strictly try and get the attention of these 4-5 users, have them stop, at least for the moment, to add their links indiscriminately and to go into discussion. If a wikiproject deems that these links are suitable to be in the infobox, then by all means, they should be welcomed to share that information. Also, since they are specialists in this subject, they might be able to expand articles like Nav1.9 (which is hardly a stub; if I give a glance at the external link they added there is more information that could be of interest for the article). I hope this explains. --Dirk BeetstraTC06:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After correcting myuser details please consider my small contribution to this matter:-129.215.239.166 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009
The links to IUPHAR-DB are essentially for enabling the general scientific and pharmacological community to obtain information on the recommended nomenclatures of the receptor-ion channels as agreed by IUPHAR. With respect to all your contributions, is the next best step forward to try and register the said IP address? If so how? I like the idea of the info box link, but how can this best be done? IUPHAR-db curators (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) — Chido Mpamhanga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
My suggestion is, to create a personal account (I will block this username when they have responded, this violates our username policy), and from there discuss with Boghog2 and Tryptofish, or others knowledgeable (e.g. via a Wikipedia:WikiProject). I have also suggested that on the users' talkpage. --Dirk BeetstraTC10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly confident Boghog2 and Tryptofish understand the concerns relating to the Issue, but for the benifit of the IUPHAR organisation I want to clarify. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of content, not links
Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. We don't need to link to every part of the IUPHAR site that may relate to an articles topic this would clearly violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. There are currently 493 links to this site none of which validly reference article content. ALL the links were added by the IUPHAR organisation initialy, none were added by high volume trusted wikipedian editors.
The contributions to wikipedia under the above IP's and accounts consist entirely of adding external links to iuphar-db.org and is considered WP:Spamming. As Beetstra points out, they too are interested in rankings and having links on wikipedia, and have exploited wikipedias openess and editability to do so. Wether these links have value or not, having IUPHAR add them is' an incompatibility between the aims of Wikipedia and IUPHAR.
One of Wikipedia's pillars is neutrality. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Conflict of interest isn't just a matter of Useful vs. non-useful, but about self-promotion in general. IUPHAR has demonstrated this explicitly. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites, but to neutral editors.
Links to this site are repeatedly added and there has been significant disruption, abuse, inappropriate behavior and major breaches of policy by IUPHAR.
Here are some violations relating to this situation:
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
I agree that consensus for inclusion in the suggested infobox of this link needs to occur at the apropriate wikiproject through the consensus process. Let a majority of editors at the wikiproject deem it suitable for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments on the matter, still awaiting any further suggestions on the suggestion to use the templates e.g. given by Boghog2 above? blackbutterfly (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The decision at this point is up to the neutral and independent Wikipedia editors @ the appropriate wikiproject. I for one would suggest you don't actively pursue this further as its an apparent violation of Conflict of interest guidelines. Please read the bottom bullet point here. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto iuphar-db.org, right?--Hu12 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points all around Dirk and Hu12. I certainly agree that the way these IUPHAR links were added was far from optimal. As requested, I will submit a proposal to the WT:PHARM project with cross links from WT:MCB and Portal_talk:Gene_Wiki projects to determine whether there is consensus for adding IUPHAR links to the protein boxes and if there is broad support, I will work with the community to implement the proposal. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you archived the discussion when you last replied, so I thought I'd respond to what you said here. First of all, I want to say I appreciate your efforts to guard against link spam. I have experienced people spamming links and stuff onto articles I'm trying to help, and it's frustrating trying to deal with it. We're on the same side, ok? :)
So I wanted to address a couple things you said. It sounded like you kind of made a character judgment about me and I didn't feel like that was fair. So can I clarify?
I'm not repeatedly asking, I was only asking for a response to what I'd said earlier. I asked for others to weigh in too because it seemed like only having two people in the conversation wasn't gonna get anywhere. It hadn't gotten a reply for weeks and I wasn't sure why.
I'm not sure if you think I'm a sockpuppet for them or not. Of course being on the Internet there's really no way to prove that either way... I suppose if you really wanted to, you could do/get someone to do an IP lookup of my username and see that I've never added or taken away information to the article before. Let it suffice that I'm an established editor and I wandered into an article trying to improve it, and was not able to. Can you assume good faith for me? :)
You seem to be saying that adding a patch to an article is "abuse". I was not aware of this and I'm not sure I agree. Try to experience it from my side - I go to the article, the article lists a current version number, but it is unsourced, so I try to add a source. The current version of the article lists the patch, and looking at the history, it has been unchallenged for two months and the reversions do not seem to have violated 3RR. More to the point, the edits you listed as examples of oldunreal.com abuse don't even mention oldunreal.com, so I can't see how this qualifies as abuse. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this understanding but in any case I'm not advocating for abuse and I do not wish to abuse
Note I'm specifically referring to the listing of the current version as unofficial/227f - only listing the current one is different from creating a list of links or list of patches, which I also agree would dilute the article's purpose. I'm also not talking about listing them as an external link.
At heart, I'm a peacemaker. I wish there was a way to make everyone get along. However, I'm not affiliated with the site so I can't speak for them. I just think it's sad that they're on a blacklist because of some antagonistic drooling fan boys and can't ever be cited/talked about by anyone, ever. I would have been happy to go to their forums and give them a good clue about how to act in the future but it seems like we've decided they aren't welcome here :(
Anyway, thank you for your time. I appreciate the fact that you've been willing to reply and cite policy, even if I may disagree with the application thereof. Since you talked about notability and abuse, can I ask you a question? I want to do the research to cite the current version in the article to a third-party, published review site which meets notability. However, I'm afraid I'll get classified as an abuser just because the patch was created by oldunreal.com which is on the spam list. Is that something I should be worried about? I want to improve the article, but not at the cost of my account :) Thank you once again for your time, Joren (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Was browsing the discussion page for the article and noticed the oldunreal.com admin posting here. Man that guy's snarky. Not sure why I'm bothering to intercede for them... meh Joren (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. to clarify. (1) The lack of reply was because the discussion was closed. MediaWiki pages are for the administration of the Wikipedia project and are not intended to help users with their grieving process. In this case I think you may have missunderstood. (2) The talk page and articles history is riddled with Meatpuppets and the site owner attempting to get oldunreal's patch and link included. Statements by you like "willing to go on their forums and explain things to them ", "I'd be willing to make things clear to them" and "I think I can speak their language' does raise questions. AGF guideline "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence". While oldunreal.com has provided a sufficient contrary evidence to their intentions, continued advocacy and pushing of contentious facts when policies are clearly contradictory, simply raiseses concerns. I'll assume you have no connection, but advise you to not intercede on behalf of oldunreal. (3) The repeated reinsertion of oldunreal's unofficial patch content, even withought the link is continued evidence of activity related to the initial abuse. The site owners heavy activity on the talk page, the presence of Meatpuppets and repeated anon editing to on behalf of oldunreal.com all coincide. (31) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. A list of every unoficial patch on every article about a game may be useful, but these are not included because Wikipedia is not a directory, fansite or Game guide. (4) I believe you are a peacemaker, they created their own problem. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy.
Even if there were not the egreegis violations, and threats of disruption, the link fails basic inclusion criteria. If you want to improve the article, remove the 'unofficial' patch info, as regular long-time editors of the page have had to do over and over. I know your intentions are in good faith, your a long time editor so dont worry about all this. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. It's best at this point for both of us to move onto more productive endevers. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please will you revert your edit on this article to the one that was agreed through discussions on the talk page and subsequently proetcted. It is an abuse of your admin privileges to enforce your own agenda while the article is protected when there is a current agreement to keep the links on the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So just because one sockpuppet was spamming articles with this link, it is now banned from legitimate use on articles where it is valid? Why is it still on this page if the link is now invalid? Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind that I try this solution. It might be that we have to blacklist anyway in the end, if they manage to get around the filter. Feel free to re-blacklist then. I hope the sockpuppet investigation will kill all sleepers. --Dirk BeetstraTC20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems incredibly stupid to continue spamming, and both sides seem to be there (but well, I do have doubts as well). And as you notice, there are many removals, which would not be stopped by the blacklist (but are now by the filter, if all works correct). Its evening in the UK now, they should have time to test the filter a bit. --Dirk BeetstraTC20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an eye on the edit filter as well, apparently 2 ranges were blocked (upon which I took the block of the edit filter, it still tags), but the edit filter came with a hit which looked a bit .. fishy. I'm not sure. --Dirk BeetstraTC19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hu12, during the recent edit war on List of beer styles, and the ongoing edit warring regarding bjcp links across a range of beer articles, it is understandable that someone coming in fresh can get lost. You ended up removing my edits in response, no doubt, to concerns about the actions of User:Jojojohnson2 and no doubt others. No worries. What I may do is fully protect the article for a while, as there is currently a lot of sockpuppet activity regarding bjcp links. It's frustrating because the list has been designed after a number of conversations, here, and hereand here for example, with the aim of reducing conflict and bringing together the varied views on beer style in one list so people can see that there is variation, and there is no single absolute authoritative beer style list (as some bjcp supporters appear to believe!). The List of beer styles is intended to be varied and well supported by cites, and the inclusion of bjcp is very much a part of the project. This is not using a bjcp cite to support an article on a beer style, this is using bjcp cites to support their own inclusion on a list which is intended to show the varied approaches to beer style around the world. A very different thing. Regards SilkTork *YES!18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, I would suggest, as I did on AN, that a specific link is whitelisted for this page, to stop the edit warring or other additions by existing and new socks. Unfortunately, leaving the link there while the domain is blacklisted will in the end also result in problems, and for that moment it is best to remove them all. I hope that the sockpuppets can be stopped in a different way, and that then the link can be de-blacklisted. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with blacklisting, but I have made a request that certain articles be free to link to bjcp, and those are the articles that will be making reference to bjcp itself. I'm sure a solution will be found to this situation. Regards SilkTork *YES!19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're busy having a few beer at the moment (or eliminating few unreq'd beer links).. but I have a request... if you have time. I know you unequaled respect and admiration for edit warriors. Perhaps you could look into the shenanigans of this feller... particularly his recent activity on the Robert Johnson page. Several (IE more than 3.. incl one after a 3RR warning) with the golden edit summary "I will continue to revert back" anf the even more golden "I will wake up everyday and revert it back if changed." I think his edit practices will be pretty predictable. I absolutely loathe the painful art of 3RR reporting. Perhaps... if you have time to review... you could leave an earned message for this user about where 3RR gets you. Mucho appreciatus! LibsyThe Real Libs-speak politely01:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gave the final warning with details. the 3rr warning was posted after the last edit to the article, so I wont block for 3rr. However this is excessive disruption posting entirely false information repeatedly, and threatening to continue to do so. If this user continues, or does it again, he can be blocked for disruption even if he/she does not revert more than three times per day. 3rr is not a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he turned around and issued ignorant posts and false warnings to other editors was not a polite thing to do... including leaving a bogus post on my old IP talk page. There is discussion that this user is a new sockpuppet account for a user named Smoovedogg because he is re-adding the crufty content that Mr Smoovedogg has been trying to promote. Only difference is Smoovedogg is "politely ignorant" with other editors whereas the new possible sock is a complete and total a***ole did I say that? :-) The Real Libs-speak politely14:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is this?? As admin you should look into things more throughly. Real libs is the real one being an a***hole. He and this other User ganged up on (SSsoul). Real libs is showing his true ignorance. I had two sources that clearly said Robert Johnson was "The King of Delta Blues" and so I posted. The same guy reverted back as much as me and he did not get any warning. Fairdeal was his name. I posted on Real libs page dont disrespect me and say stupid comments about me when is was speaking to sssoul. Dont believe me here they are:
"You sent me a message about edit-warring and its consequences but you have not sent anything to "Fairdeal" on the Robert Johnson Page and the Little Richard page. Two Pages. This user is becoming obsessed with reverting everything I do. Its in a sense harassment. If you send me something, send something to the other person who was involved also. The Source of Wiki Power (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't mind this tr***... he's about to go bye-bye back down under his bridge. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks The Source of Wiki Power (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) ( I orginally thought Real libs was helping me)
And now there's the IP to go back under the bridge right along with its owner. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC) "
That was rude and unnecessary. Sure I felt like my sourced edits where not being respected because someone said its like a Vh1 title when it wasnt. Then thats when I said what I said about opinion to protect my edits. Isnt that the essence of Wikipedia to find facts. How dare you guys gang up on me. I stopped editing Robert Johnson after the first warning. So its completely unnecessary to get a Block warning again for something Im not doing anymore. If this is just a few users ganging up on me (New to Wiki) its a strong case of Wikipedia Favoritism and I wont stand for it. I will report whoever I feel that is not allowing to edit freely with sources. I will do things differently in the case of not coming on so strong but I was in no way trying to disrupt anything. Everyone is free to edit that is the rule of wikipedia and no on owns an article. Fianlly Real Libs doesnt know what he's talking about yet again saying that Im Smmovedog or whatever. Look at the sources its not a false edit. http://www.robertjohnsonbluesfoundation.org/Bio.htmlhttp://www.musicdirect.com/product/84001 . I deserve respect just like anyone else and Real libs is out of line. The Source of Wiki Power (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did stop after the warning, thankyou. things like this need to be discussed on the Robert Johnson talkpage. Attempting to win a content dispute through brute force is not appropriate. 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. 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, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate. Lets look at the core of the issue. you repeatidly inserted that Robert Johnson "was" "The King of Delta Blues", however the reference refers to his album "King of the Delta Blues Singers". while first sentence in the the second paragraph of your first link is a bit ambiguous, you have drawn the inference he "was" "The King of Delta Blues".
"Robert Johnson, "King of the Delta Blues Singers", was born in Hazlehurst, MS in Copiah County, on May 8, 1911."
Confusing, but clearly the statement is a reference to his most famous album. The other link is just a sales link to buy the album. But that even gives us a clue "Only one complete song was commercially available until this album, King Of The Delta Blues Singers". and "The myth that surrounds Robert Johnson has only grown since people have discovered his music." Can't be a "king" if no-one's heard of you... you get the point. Wiki article; King of the Delta Blues Singers. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. Best thing to do is engage in discussion first, before situations get out of controll. If your edits are reverted or rejected, you should take the dispute to the talk page. All this can be avoided if it was discussed. I believe your well intentioned and I hope I've explained this sufficiently. Editors are human, capable of mistakes so keep in mind; WP:CIV. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize to you for you overreacting. Though Wiki libs has a serious mental issue and needs help you were just doing your job rightfully and I apologize. You showed me the right way of discussing matters and not using weak sources without you being insulting or being overall weird like some. I hope all admins can be like you. Thanks and sorry. The Source of Wikipowers (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scmd
It appears that you have reverted some changes to List of content management systems, in order to remove some systems that were listed there without articles, which is perfectly fair. It appears that you reverted a few other changes as well, such as my removal of Expression Engine from the list of free and open source content management systems (it is already listed, correctly, under the list of proprietary content management systems), and an anonymous editor's edit listing some more databases TYPO3 is compatible with (I don't know if this is correct or not). Did you mean to revert these changes as well? If so, can you provide justification, such as demonstration that Expression Engine is available under the GPL or some other free or open source software license? Thanks. — λ (talk | contribs) 20:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Might have reverted those unintentionaly. I've reverted back to your removal of "Expression Engine" and added back the database types [14]. I also am not sure if the database types are correct, however if they are not, feel free to revert them..ect. Thanks for the note and catching that. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I don't really know about the list of databases either; I'll let someone with more knowledge of the subject deal with that. — λ (talk | contribs) 17:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy Spamerton
Good Hello. Thanks for your help with the Johnny Rebel mess. You seem to be doing a tremendous amount of work over at the blacklist, is there anything I can do to help out? Does it require the admin. bit or can any editor pitch in? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addition/removal actions on the BL page are limited to admins, however any editor can help compile/submit evidence. An area where you might actualy enjoy pitching in is over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Seems you do a lot of spam removal (and there is alot to do on Wikipedia), why not contribute. Plenty of help is needed and welcomed. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you for the external links edit you made on the b-boy page. I had a feeling it would get out of hand with too many social networks. The link you provided is perfect. Gbern3 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Jeremy Smith, and I am the Chief Strategy Officer for SecondMarket, the largest secondary market for illiquid assets (www.SecondMarket.com). I would like to cordially request that our ban from contributing to Wikipedia (instituted by you approximately ten months ago) be lifted. I now understand how our contributions could be deemed spam/advertising. It was our first time contributing to Wikipedia, and, as such, we did not have a great feel for what was appropriate or inappropriate.
We plan to be more diligent and objective going forward. So as to ensure that we do not step over the line, I encourage you to track our account, and if we egregiously violate good conduct again, you can ban us for life. Also, to help make sure we stay "in bounds" is there a pre-submission protocol that we can follow? In other words, is there someone to whom we can send certain of our proposed submissions if we are unsure whether it will be deemed spam? I ask because there may be items that we do not deem spam, but the greater community might, and we do not want to unintentionally step over that line again.
On that note, one of the items I would like to post is a company page for us. I know on the surface, it may seem like advertising, but our company is a fast emerging company that is at the center of liquidity crisis affecting the entire country today. We have become very relevant in bringing liquidity to nine illiquid asset classes (including private company stock, mortgage-backed securities, and California IOUs). As evidence of our relevance/importance, we do down to Washington DC every two weeks to consult with members of the Senate, the House of Representatives, Treasury, the Fed, and the FDIC. Two additional items of note:
1. As unbiased proof of my assertions above, please visit the press page on our website (www.secondmarket.com/press/articles) to view the dozens of articles we have been featured or quoted in over the past 18 months, including recent features in the Wall Street Journal, USAToday, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Bond Buyer, Reuters, the New York Times, the LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and BusinessWeek.
2. There are a number of smaller or less relevant companies or competitors who have their own pages, including The Hamburger Station, Cogent Partners, and Campbell Lutyens. Accordingly, I think it would be more than appropriate to have a company of our size ($30 - $40 million in revenue and 130 employees in 2009 vs. $1 million in revenue and five employees just four years ago) and relevance on Wikipedia.
I hope you will consider our request and reinstate our creation and editing permissions. As the largest marketplace for illiquid assets, we feel we have much to contribute to the knowledge base of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out, and I will be more than happy to answer them for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmit1313 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles were deleted as the faild our inclusion requirements, I blocked the SecondMarket, Inc. (talk·contribs), as it violates our username policy. From what i read on the article deleted talk page [15] all these accounts are you, as you signed them. You were given multiple warnings[16], all of which contained informational links on, what was wrong and how to fix you article for inclusion. You've had quite a bit of time to read up how to contribute to wikipedia (almost a year), yet you don't even sign your post. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote "SecondMarket, Inc.", right?
Thank you very much. I appreciate the consideration. I apologize for missing the previous warnings. The entries from the first two user accounts were done before I joined the firm, so I was unaware that these had been done, and when I received the latest warning, I was not entirely clear what I was seeing (since I was/am new at this). Going forward I will try to be more knowledgeable of the rules and etiquette. I will continue to work on the SecondMarket article on my own user page, attempt to abide by the guidelines you provided, and submit them for approval. Again thank you for the consideration and for the second (er, fourth) chance.--Jsmit1313 (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we go off on the right foot here, the account SecondMarket, Inc. (talk·contribs) signed his post "Jeremy A. Smith"[17] on the deleted talk page of SecondMarket, Inc. (which user SecondMarket, Inc created). You've identified yourself as "Jeremy Smith" here. Lets not play games and be deceptive on the "It wasn't me bit", I don't want to regret this. However, your disclosing your affiliation on your talk page is a good start, as honesty is the best policy.--Hu12 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the link to the website containing pictures of all national parks of Norway
Hello, on the List of national parks of Norway there was my link to the website covering all existing and planned national parks of Norway (Goahteluoppal, Sjunkhatten etc. - I also updated the Wiki page with these parks) but it has been deleted by anti-spammers. The link was [www.garycki.com/NORWEGIAN_NATIONAL_PARKS.html www.garycki.com/NORWEGIAN_NATIONAL_PARKS.html]. It might have been considered as the 'self-promotion'. Please consider readdition of the link (I am not allowed to do so) if you find the source valuable. Some upload of pictures to Wikipedia may also be considered with the correct crediting.
Also other links to www.garycki.com disappeared: from Lists of national parks of Sweden, Poland, Slovakia and Germany.
[www.garycki.com/SWEDISH_NATIONAL_PARKS.html] [www.garycki.com/POLISH_NATIONAL_PARKS.html] [www.garycki.com/SLOVAKIAN_NATIONAL_PARKS.html] [www.garycki.com/GERMAN_NATIONAL_PARKS.html]
The same ask for help regards these links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.60.217.12 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the websites he linked are ".com" site, but there is absolutely no advertising on them and the photos are pretty decent. I think the Bot may have over-traveled here. Plus I like to encourage promising newbies. Intend to revert your deletion unless you have a strong argument against - in parallel, since it appears the website is his, I will encourage him to upload the pictures to Wikipedia Commons.
Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 23:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately the conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote garycki.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. this users contributions to wikipedia under IP 195.60.217.12 and IP 195.26.72.129, consist entirely of adding external links to garycki.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through the contributions as a whole, the all seem to be garycki.com related only. It has become apparent these IP's are only being used for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising".
Links in articles do notadd content or meaning to the encyclopedia. The internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content. A sugestion here would be to upload some pictures to wikipedia rather than add links to your personal site. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote garycki.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that he's actually made some significant contributions (as noted above) and that overzealous deletions discourages new contributors. However I'll try to continue to bring him in as a new editor in other ways.
51 edits since may, and all involve adding his link to garycki.com somewhere in the edit over multiple pages, Including your example (see the botom of the diff-here). This anon user has not discussed or edited outside the topic of "garycki.com", and once called out on his/her contributions, he/she is still only interested in one thing, linking to garycki.com. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. this is one such case. You see the pattern. It is quite evident that this IP is only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote garycki.com. Few people will edit tendentiously topics in which they have no connection. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests, which absolutly needs to be discouraged.--Hu12 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I even bothered to comment on that page, when all the info gets Logged anyway... LOL;). As long as there is a space between the entry and comment, it shouldent have any adverse affect other than the comment being a subset prefaced by "additional comment:" in spamlists search, rather than inline to the listing. Ie.;
With Pound #
"list: en-wikipedia blacklist
\bez-tracks\.com\b
additional comment: adware and installs a toolbar and BHO on users system
log entry: \bez-tracks\.com\b # Hu12 # request / EZTracks is an adware program. It installs a toolbar and BHO on users syste
Without Pound #
list: en-wikipedia blacklist
\bez-tracks\.com\b adware and installs a toolbar and BHO on users system
log entry: \bez-tracks\.com\b # Hu12 # request / EZTracks is an adware program. It installs a toolbar and BHO on users syste
Best practice is to include it, thanks for the note and fixing the omition error. Looks like I also for got the "m" in my log entry.. cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand. The spam blacklist takes each line, strips any comment denoted by #, trims whitespace from the remainder, and feeds it to a regex. Your entry "\bez-tracks\.com\b adware and installs a toolbar and BHO on users system" would only match urls similar to: "http://www.ez-tracks.com adware and installs a toolbar and BHO on users system/" Or in other words, it wasn't matching anything. This was found after a spammer added several additional ez-tracks links yesterday. This wasn't a comment about the logging, it was a comment about creating an entry that was non-functional. Dragons flight (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hu12, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Matrikon Inc. has been removed. It was removed by 206.75.46.250 with the following edit summary '(Removed delete template. Article is factual. All statements backed up through verifiable sources.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 206.75.46.250 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]
Quick question
Hi Hu12,
I totally understand the way you try to keep Wikipedia safe from spammers but I'm wondering how I could add my company to avoid being considered as spammer or even as an advertiser.
Our product is a project management software, we think it's relevant for us and for users to be listed in that category. It's not spam or advertising, I guess you understand it's part of our evolution to be listed on Wikipedia? Is there a way to add our product? If so, please give me guidelines, I already tried many times to write it in a journalistic way but it seems i failed ;). We are in the field of Project management for 10 years. Hope to hear from you soon, Isabelle, --Millinet (talk)
Quick Question
I've just spent the last few days updating the wikipedia information about a charity called Action Against Hunger and you recently removed all of my edits. I'm wondering why...? What did I do?
All I did was update the page with all the latest information about the charity... I didn't add any false information (and to confirm that I've put all those references..)
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Action Against Hunger. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Adamore and IP 92.133.158.137, consist entirely of adding external links to actionagainsthunger.org and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Action Against Hunger 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 of Action Against Hunger. Wikipedia is NOT 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 "Action Against Hunger" right? --Hu12 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, sorry, I missed that on my talk page. Thanks.
And yeah, I'm not here to only 'promote' action against hunger, but it just happens to be a charity i care about so i thought I'd update their wikipedia information (as much of it is outdated...), but I intend to do other updating later on (I've updated wikipedia entries in the past, just I didn't have an account back then) - i've only created this wikipedia account a few months ago.
I noticed you reverted back to the previous action against hunger wikipedia page; so I have to leave the outdated (and in some instance false) information or can I change it?
My link to the TWI materials keeps getting deleted by you. I have read the spamming policy. I haven't solicited emails or spammed anybody. I simply want people to be able to download the public domain materials that are hosted on my site. I also provide some context for people to consider. I am gainfully employed and do not rely on this website for income, only what VERY little adsense revenue I get allows me to keep these materials hosted on the site and available to all to download for free. I think this approach is inline with wikipedia's intent to make information available to all people. Plus, the external links that have not been deleted are links to articles hosted on sites that do profit from traffic referred to from the Training Within Industry wiki page. I feel like this is a double standard. Can you please explain what is really happening here, as I feel I am being singled out. Plus you have an advertisement above...?! Isn't that spam?!
O.k. fine, but that was the past. But I'm still confused because you still haven't explained why the external links that have been on there for God knows how long haven't been deleted. This looks like a double standard. I can tell you that everybody I know who has something to do with TWI wants to link to the wiki page, and for some reason the one guy who runs the only international summit for TWI is allowed to keep his links up. Do you know the organizer? At nearly $1000 for registration, do you think he may be making a profit off from Wikipedia's links to his site? Yet I, who makes jack $h!t on my site and simply wants to get more people to learn about the topic, gets blacklisted. What is up with that? If I link to articles hosted on my site that are relevant to the TWI topic, PRECISLY in the same manner that the twisummit.com links do, are you going to blacklist me? The anser is apparently yes. Again, what is up with the double standard? You went to the page, deleted my links, or at least your COIBot did, and then the remaining commercial links stay. What am I supposed to be clear about here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lundbird (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
My materials that i post on wikipedia keeps getting deleted by you. What do i need to do to keep it live and preventing it from getting deleted?
I see a very prolofic spammer adding their non-notable amateur album reviews to many an album article. Based on the username it looks like a clear WP:COI issue as well. Any chance you can keep a watch on this website. If tit gets too bad the site should put awarded a "blackie" The Real Libs-speak politely15:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious username violation, reviewrinserepeat.com. Delt with accordingly. I've added a Spam report, so others can also keep a look out for this. Cleanup is needed. thanks libs..--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But why do I not have this credential attached to my accountishness? On the rarity that I create pages or re-directs related to WP:MUSIC and WP GUITAR... I would love to know that I can be trusted to do this without an npp wasting his/her valuable time spinning their wheels and checking me out. The Real Libs-speak politely14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really comes down to being someone who regularly creates articles. You are of course trusted, and have rollbacker rights. Besides being a long standing delet-ionist. You woulden't want to send the wrong message, would you?...LOL. Chances are any NPP reviewing will have been a wikipedian for less time with fewer edits than you, Done Go create some articles.--Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For all of the work you do dealing with the spam-blacklist and spam-whitelist. It's a thankless job that seems to be never ending without much recognition. So I hereby recognize you with the Admin's Barnstar! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was my edit reverted on UAA? I thought the username was clearly a violation of policy. I am not a regular there, so I am not sure, but the user was not blocked. Please let me know.--LAAFansignreview16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Not sure how that happend. I had multiple browser windows open and the computer was lagging. Probably right clicked somewhere the (obviously) wrong Item on my watchlist. :(--Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to figure out why Matrikon Inc was added to the Wikipedia blacklist.
I can see that several of the external links submitted for French, Spanish, Chinese, and German pages were flagged as spam. These links were to language-specific video presentations on the subject matter; no registration, no products pushed. As such, I believe they were mistakenly flagged and should be reinstated, as there are very few language-specific resources available on this topic.
I also see that the most recent activity performed before deletion/blacklisting was addition of about 4 links involving industrial protocols to pages comparing those protocols with the OPC protocol on our blog. The end content was applicable and relevant so I'm not really sure why it acted as a catalyst to the blacklisting/purging of the entire company from Wikipedia. A click-through to the content would have shown a balanced overview comparing these protocols to each other. I'd leave a link to an example article, but I can't because of the blacklist.
As this seems to be simple misunderstanding, I would like the blacklist to be reconsidered.
Thank you.
Poking you for your opinion on a subject NOT concerning spam links
Hey Hu12. I want to poke your brain on a Wiki-thing that doesn't involve spam. There once was a user named Luminifer who created an article for a band called Pain Hertz. Mr. Luminifer is the main contributor to that page (pretty much the only contributor). Turns out Mr. Luminifer is a member of the band (no surprise) COI aside... Pain Hertz has been up'd for AfD. Mr. Luminifer has voted keep. Following this a suspicious account named Amalthya also voted keep. The vote is suspicious because it was only that account's second edit to the Wik (the first being 2+ years ago) Then another suspicious keep vote showed up this time from a shiny new account named Mozucat. This account had little-to-nil article space edits and no AfD edits prior to today. As it turns, out a simple Google search revealed that these 2 sparse accounts are both listed at Luminifer's Last.FM profile space as friends. And, Luminifer is listed as friends of these 2 new accounts on their Last.FM profiles. The entire AfD is starting to "odour-up" of a meat smell which is getting stronger as the debate stays active. I would like your opinion on whether this vote has been tainted enough to strike the meaty comments... or whether another process is available to weed out the burger-bunch and make the debate un-skewed by "bologna" votes. Is that enough meatpuppet wordations? :-) Appreciate your time reviewing this. Thanks! Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect in your assumptions about being "friends" (namespace coincidences across domains are interesting, but not conclusive, and if they are the same people, being friends on a social networking site is hardly a meaningful thing) - and also your deduction that Mozucat is a new user, as detailed by their contributions, which have occurred for a period of over a year. It is an interesting coincidence, but I have not sent out any last.fm messages - I would go so far as to say that because of the lack of notification done when the article was nominated for deletion, of course only obscure fans are going to notice that AfD. People on last.fm are likely to be people more active in this music scene as well. Regardless, it is not a ballot, so I'm not sure why you want/need the votes stricken from the record - why not leave that up to the admin? Regarding your claim that I'm a member of this band, apart from that being a violation of WP:OUTING, I'm not sure why you think so in the first place. Luminifer (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Libs, canvassing and meat puppetry are very serious issues. If you have solid proof than you may file a WP:SPI, but not without good cause. If indeed Lunimifer is a member of the band then that is an egregious COI violation. Triplestopx320:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Late reply. The COI issue, to me, was not as pressing an issue as the other. I was keen to AGF that any attempts to prove notability would be sincere whether it was a WP:COI violation or not. There were no violations of canvassing (within the Wikipedia talk pages) by the article creator or the suspect accounts. But external internet sites did show a strong possibility of collusion. It sets a precedence for doing account name searches when there is suspicion of vote-stacking. This AfD resulted in blatantly false accusations of WP:OUTING (likely to re-direct attention from the AfD itself). So care would have to be taken to make it clear that 'vote-stacking' investigations do take place... and results could tarnish accounts if they are caught. The WP:OUTING claim brought up during this AfD were bogus because the user making the claim had, in fact, outed himself. Writing a definitive guideline for "collusion seeking" would prove tricky to avoid this type of system gaming to happen again. It's all moot in the end as far as this AfD goes. The closing administrator said the meat-puppetry was obvious and those votes were rejected. And even if they had been included the article would have been deleted regardless. These sorts of tarnished wiki-processes take place every day. But at least we can still rid the project of a few spam links once and a while... eh Hu12. Have a nice, spam free, day! The Real Libs-speak politely19:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Triplestop, Hu2... It is my feeling that a lot of what Libs has said here is false, but if you don't want to hear what my particular disagreements are, that's fine. I don't want to start even more trouble, as I've had enough of this site after that fiasco. Luminifer (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD
For future reference, is there a CSD template I could have used for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nalxhal, or is it just one of those blatantly obvious cases that slides between the bins? Disclaimer: I ask out of curiosity and workload reduction, I really could not care less about whatever drama may be infesting speedy deletions this week. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
08:16, 20 May 2008 Hu12 protected Spambot (repeated vandalisn by anons [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary, nearly 18 months later. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion on talk:Spambot. --TS00:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GLAM
In case you haven't noticed, there is a proposal to develop a WP:GLAM guideline (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, see m:GLAM) in this discussion. The idea is to advise experts from suitable institutions how they might contribute to articles, including how they might add links to their own institutions. I think the general plan is excellent, but obviously some care needs to be taken to avoid driving a tunnel through WP:EL because already it is sometimes difficult to explain why it is necessary to revert links added by SPA accounts. This is just FYI, no reply needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the note. Since the user has declared his COI and with yourself and other New Zealand editors are creating oversight, fixing broken existing links seems to be ok. However, Stuartyeates suggestion of a bot to deal with the redirects seems more practical. The addition of any new links seems better left to long time trusted editors such as yourself. One area this person from the DOC could be very helpful is in the area of photo's. Supplying quality pictures and images in the appropriate NZ articles is an area where User:Conservation ranger would be an great asset for Wikipedia, more so than links. May also be able to get additional oversight from Wikipedia:COI/N. I'll Post a few things over there also. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
askgeo.org links
I noticed this morning that there was a sudden proliferation of links to this site on US State pages. Everyone I've checked (so far) has been added by a different IP with no other edits. The site doesn't have ads (yet) but appears to be a one of those dime-a-dozen geography stat aggregator sites. I wouldn't be surprised if they added advertising later. What do you think? OhNoitsJamieTalk14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AskGeo Inc, and the Domain as "Created On:06-Aug-2009 08:10:28 UTC"[20]. Seems like pure marketing/spam. WP:ELNO#4. Additionaly they are both citation spamming here and Image spamming on commons. Seems fairly sophisticated, for a new contributor. There's probably more to this, than AskGeo.
Thanks for taking the time to revert all those - but please, do say something in the edit summary about it - "linkspam", or a link back to here - one at a time they appear to be perfectly reasonable and it's not until you realize that these links are proliferating like kudzu that you appreciate the problem. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hu12. I did not originally add the [http ://www.center4research.org/children11.html When Little Girls Become Women: Early Onset of Puberty in Girls] reference from center4research.org to the Causes section of the Precocious puberty article, but I would like to know why you consider it a spam ref. I see that the information in the Causes section starting with Bisphenol A (BPA) and ending with tumor is all from the center4research.org site as well, as seen in [http ://www.center4research.org/BPA.html this link]. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I take it you changed how I linked that source here on your talk page also because it is a spam ref? I understand now why you removed it from the Precocious puberty article; I already knew of our conflict of interest guideline. I guess it applies even when a different editor without a conflict of interest (in this case, myself) adds it back? And is it okay to leave the information from that source in the article? It is attributed to another source now, which I think is a source you added. Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection for Great power
Hi there,
I was wondering if you could please page protect Great power for a while to let things cool down. User:Lear 21 is constantly adding his additions to the page despite many, repeated requests to stop making unilateral changes and discuss on the Talk. We've been having a discussion amongst a several editors on the article Talk page to reach a consensus but he still continues to make unilateral changes/reverts and ignore all requests. Please have a look and thanks for looking into it. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi friend, thanks for protecting the page for a short while. It seemed to initially encourage the more recalcitrant editors to discuss on the Talk page. However, things have definitely turned for the worse. User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson are reverting to POV pushing, repeated personal attacks, edit warring, abruptly "closing" discussions/prematurely "declaring" consensus to make a point. Could you look at the Talk and history once more? The two editors have been warned many times to not making any large scale changes until consensus is obtained and to discuss calmly yet the do just the opposite. This sort of disruptive editing has been going on for several weeks with no end in sight. Lear 21 in particularly has been blocked many times for edit warring in the past. Both curiously also have similar ways of making personal attacks on other editors have edit similar articles about the Germany and the EU. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hu12, I was wondering, if this here is the right place to come forward with a problem.
As I see, user Nirvana888 made a request and several single sided statements here. In fact, me and others have made and argued for some changes at the article Great power. The arguments have been supported by a massive amount of credible, academic sources and were frequently rejected by users like Nirvana888. At the same time non-academic sources have been reinserted without comment. The level of contradiction in order to preserve a status quo seems obviously. This user also violated the 3RRR policies of Wikipedia by reverting every single edit no matter what content was changed. In my eyes the 4 reverts should be investigated at a neutral level. [21][22][23][24]. What do you think ? Shouldn´t this behaviour be reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ? There are at least 5 other edits of Nirvana888 which comply to the same method of single sided reverts. KJohansson (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, with respect, you are clearly doing this to get back at me. As you can see on the talk, only you and Lear seem to support your contentious edits while everybody else has not supported them in their present state. Being disruptive to make a point will not get you anywhere and allow you to form a consensus earlier. Funny how you complain about reverts from multiple editors yet time and time again (once more today) have decided to flaunt consensus and revert to your "proposals". Nirvana888 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a request for comment. There does seem to be quite a bit of back and forth going on, and the most effective way, in my opinion, is consensus vote on the content in question through the dispute resolution process. Requests for comment on the talk page should be attempted. See this page how to RFC on an article talk page some examples are here. I see in this section, there is begining support for removing particular references. Consensus is king, achieve a clear consensus for keeping/removing particular content. --Hu12 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I started this article after doing the research and writing, I found it had been deleted before - twice! The admin that closed the last AfD has retired, but you nominated the last version. Any advice? Maybe it should be nominated again, just to ensure proper discussion? The organization seems notable, and potentially there are several links to it from other Wikipedia articles. But it is for-profit, and reading the article after writing, it does seem a bit puffy, although this is just what turned up from a routine summary of web articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For profit companies can be notable just as non-profits can be spam-vertizing. Much better than the the deleted versions. Could just trim it down to just most reliable and verifyable sources since its fresh from your research, bu you don't realy need to. Did an ACAMS news search, book search and scholar turns up a few. You could poke the folks at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Slap a redirect on ACAMS and forget about it for a few days. I think you did a good job, especially on a challenging article such as this. --Hu12 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback - that is reassuring. I have added internal links. I will take your advice and leave it for a bit. Right now, don't know why, I am on a roll of making thumbnail articles on Nigerian senators. Sort of a complex and interesting subject, with very little coverage so far. I started the article because it seemed like an obvious redlink from Independent Corrupt Practices Commission, which I started because it was a redlink from Ghali Umar Na'Abba, which was a redlink from Eziuche Ubani, a redlink from Nuhu Aliyu ... Aymatth2 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Dixon (industrial designer)
Hi Hu12/Archive7! A biography which you have either created, contributed to, or edited, is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changes related to bedeutung
Hi there Hu12,
In the process of cleaning up some material which you thought were spam, you ended up deleting information wholesale. Briefly: you reverted Bedeutung's page to a previous state, whereas since the beginning of September, Bedeutung is more than a magazine, incorporating three projects which were not mentioned in the page that you reverted to. Second, you deleted the link to an exclusive Martin Durkin interview, again to the same magazine. Now, Durkin gives an interview once in a blue moon and this particular one is not only very extensive, but it also sheds a lot of light on the controversy of his Swindle documentary. Now, if wikipedia users are deprived of this information, i do not see how it is conducive to better/more objective information.
I have, thus, reverted both pages to their previous state. I hope upon further inspection you will realize the usefulness of doing so.
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Hello Hu12. I agree with your recent action about an editor at Fox News Channel. Due to temporary 3RR fatigue I haven't followed up lately at the noticeboard and I've not been tracking CAT:RFU, but I don't think there is a case for his unblock. It is good whenever more admins show up at AN3, so there is a diversity of approaches. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agreed with your reasoning when it was first reported, however it was after, when the warnings and your comments were ignored by IndyObserverther.... it became a slippery slope. --Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: User:Michaelorland
Um, does User:Michaelorland really justify a block? While the user was providing links to his/her own site on a large number of talk pages, it was entirely in good faith, seeking discussion on whether or not the links were appropriate. I don't believe that this user was intending to advertise their website, but figured that the ext link might be useful in an article, and rather than spamming, asked for discussion. I think that it would have been far more constructive to just reply "no, WP is not for links like that" and be done with it; the user's friendly and constructive comments lead me to believe that he/she would have complied, and the situation would be resolved (begging the question that such links are not appropriate, which they possibly are (I'm not all that familiar with ext link policy)). -M.Nelson (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming here for a similiar matter. I noticed your reversion of his edit to the external links noticeboard, but the posting appeared in good faith and it also appeared to make appropriate use of the board. No opinion on the block for talkpage spamming, but perhaps you should let the discussion take place at ELN and then we could revisit individual pages if the link is deemed acceptable (I haven't viewed it yet so I'm impartial here). ThemFromSpace19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mass Spamcanvassing talkpages and Source soliciting, no matter how nicely the user "appears" to ask is no different than mass spamming articles. Blocked per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption; Persistent spamming. "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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.'
Curious if you could elaborate why you marked my contribution as a neutrality problem and Rvt spam (I couldn't find anything specific on the talk page - only the history note with your username) . I'm new to the Wikipedia community, so if you could explain I'll work on the contribution further to make sure it's within the guidelines. Thanks for your tips and advice Aestheticmanagement (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for clarifying a bit, as for my username, I had no idea there was a guideline, but that just happens to be the name i use to describe an artistic practice, but it's private and not related to a group. should this be changed for an individual name? I have made only one contribution to Wikipedia as of yet, I'm in the arts field and therefore am interested in creating profiles for artists practices that are interesting for the discourse - but that have some notability internationally (and therefore source-able). (I'm not a gallerist or dealer, but an artist, so I do not profit from this, and have not written a profile about myself) - does that still warrant a COI? Thanks in advance for your suggestions. Aestheticmanagement (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to use your real name ect.., however if you do have COI, its best to declare it on your userpage. If you are affiliated with some of the people, or things you plan to write about, it may be considered a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Your first article looks very good, so your off to a good start. There is nothing wrong with writing within a subject you have knowledge of, that in itself is not a COI. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so I encourage you to participate and contribute freely. To keep article from being deleted be sure they meet includion criteria such as, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. I've added a helpful instuctions to your talkpage, and removed the COI tag from the article. If you need assistance or have further questions, let me know I'll try and help, or point you in the right direction.--Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you, that was very kind of you. I just happened to be the CU who was online; I'm sure any one of us would have worked with the same alacrity. It's nice to see our work appreciated :) -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hu I noticed you semi protected Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and others. Just for the future, all editnotices are already protected by the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, which means that only admins and account creators can edit them. Full protection might be sensible for namespace-wide edit notices or high-profile editnotices even though account creators are quite trusted users, but semi-protection won't have any effect. Cheers, Amalthea19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I forgot all about that...LOL.. thanks for the reminder. I guess there's no reason to revert back and unprotect then? or would doing so just a futile waste of time?--Hu12 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hu12!
I hope this finds you well. I'm writing to inquire about your removal of the OPCTI page. I see that you've cited that it falls under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I don't think this is the case, as I have no personal affiliation with the company, and although they are indeed a company, you'll see that the information that I uploaded about them was only in reference to the free supports they offer. As you know, OPC as a process is very technical, and so I think that there is great use to the readers of OPC information to know that these resources exist.
I've also noticed that you've removed the OCPTI links from some other OPC related articles. As you'll see from those links, they were simply links to items like the Glossary of Terms and free resources for OPC users. There is no advertisement here, this is purely a resource for other users. As you'll notice under some OPC related Wiki sites, there are many companies listed - I would think that providing a link to free resources is less of an issue than some of the other companies that are listed there that don't offer free resources...? I've found OPCTI's free resources very helpful to our plant, and would like to see these resources available to others.
Hello
You removed a list that I did on the Flash_CMS page. Here is the version with the list: [[27]]
Can you explain me why you say it is not wikipedia? It took me a lot of time to do it :( And it is a really valuable information based on tests I did and my opinions as an expert in that field (Flash CMS - I have references).
Sorry if it is a stupid question... A link to a section of WP:NOT page would be great.
Thank you
lexoyo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexoyo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Thanks for the long list there, But I still believe the page has been deleted unfairly. The page itself, reference links or mentions in other articles were not to aid the company in advertising or promotion as they were true facts, not opinions. I also find it interesting to see that other spread betting firms such as IG Index are allowed a wikipedia page but not Sporting Index which seems very biased. I also found this when reading up your reasons why it was deleted:
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.
Sorry to quote rules to you as i'm sure you know them off by heart but I thought I should point out the last sentence which clearly states that having a company as the subject does not qualify an artcile to be labelled as advertising or promotion and therefore deleted.
If the page in question needs to be editted before it is deemed as acceptable by you I would be happy to do so, but as it stands now it seems very unfair.
I saw that you added a spam notice to this user's talk page. Are you sure that was supposed to be that user? I looked at their contributions and I haven't seen anything recent. OTOH I have had problems with "yourhandymanzone" and that user, so I wasn't sure. Are they editing from multiple accounts or somesuch? User A1 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User A1. See Spam case. Users MO is "citation" spamming using throw-away sock accounts, deceptively adding his/her related sites along with potential legitimate references. The site is essentialy a scraper sites, low value and would not pass WP:RS or WP:V. I,ve opened a checkuser case on this user, however its fairly evident the accounts are all the same site owner using wikipedia to promote his/her site.--Hu12 (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12 - Thank you for all the work you do to fight spam. Not only do you find it yourself, report it to the noticeboard, and clean it up -- you also quickly act on the spam reported by other editors. Your impressive editing record (234 out out of the last 500 edits to WT:WPSPAM) is an amazing 47% of the entries over the last 1.5 months. I appreciate all the time you put in and your level of activity and involvement sets a great example for other admins and editors alike. 706:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ConceptDraw MINDMAP. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. There are also two other ConceptDraw articles. Tim Song (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Analyx & CrowdWorx
Dear Hu12,
my name is Sascha, I am the co-founder of the company Analyx.
I have just registered in order to kindly ask you to reconsider your decision to initiate the deletion of all traces of Analyx from the English and German Wikipedia sites.
Please do not get me wrong, I clearly support Wikipedia's standards in terms of merely advertising content and no indication of importance. Following this, I fully understand your decision to delete the entry for CrowdWorx that was indeed inserted by an overambitious colleague of mine. Sincere apologies for this!
However, for the other 3 deletions you performed or initiated, please kindly consider the following points:
Regarding the Analyx company entry:
To my knowledge, this entry was created and further edited by research students at the University of Economics in Poznan and the University of Technology Dresden, which is why it mostly emphasizes our affiliation with academic research projects such as this [28]. In case this would require rewriting to meet Wikipedia's standards, I would encourage to mark it as such.
The reason for its speedy deletion, however, was lack of notability/importance according to the deletion log. I am fully fine with this if it would apply equally. But a short search yields multiple companies of our size and even our immediate business sector (predictive analytics) being left on Wikipedia even with less supporting reference in many cases. Could you help me understand the standards for this?
Further, you performed two deletions on [29]. In both cases, I would argue that they are adding relevant encyclopedic knowledge on the subject of prediction markets:
You deleted the reference to a paper by Aleksandar Ivanov. He is a renowned expert on prediction markets in Europe and the paper was published in the Journal of Business Forecasting, an American Journal widely read by academics and practicioners alike. Why was it deleted and the other papers were not? Would it be in order to bring it back without the www-link?
You further deleted the link to the CrowdWorx library. This is a collection of academic papers on the subject - as far as I know one of the most extensive ones publicly available. You will notice that the library contains no single case study or piece of advertising. Does the fact that it is hosted on a "commercial" site constitute the problem? If yes, then the same issue appears here [30], no?
Thanks for looking at the search analytics article. Can you please give more explanation, however, about your edits? You mentioned "cleanup, remove non article entries WP:NOTLINK" as the reason for deleting several of the services compared. It seems like comparing services without article entries could be useful as a survey of the industry is more notable than it's several and changing players. Here's an example of a useful page that compares several things that aren't important enough for their own wiki page.
I don't believe the notability of the article was in question. Only a few rows of the comparison table were deleted. However, the advertising article notes that Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives. It seems that showing less alternatives based on which ones are notable enough for their own topic limits this article's worth. CrizCraig (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review for ConceptDraw articles
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ConceptDraw articles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGF
Please give users an assumption of good faith when it comes to spam reports, as the project itself suggests.
Your spam report without notifying the bot owner or putting a notice on the bot's talk page and without any spam contributions by the one you accuse of spam (the bot) reads like a hostile attack, "I expect this site will soon be riddle with adsense and advertising, monitized by leeching off wikipedia for traffic." You've also posted this in two forums, which is unnecessary. A discussion is occurring.
When something is in the discussion stage, agf, and an actual discussion can be had and can benefit the wikipedia community by displaying a professional attitude toward newbies and experts. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGF does not require that editors assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.
As stated in the bots Function overview;
"We have extensively linked many brain regions to wikipedia, but we want to have hyperlinks in wikipedia to our project, the ConnectomeWiki as well."
In case of any misunderstanding, please note that User:IP69.226.103.13 is not connected with the ConnectomeWiki case. Here is some background that I recently posted at ANI. IP69.226.103.13 has performed many useful functions for Wikipedia, but inadvertently confuses us because they do not really want to be a logged-on user and so have used a small number of IP addresses as well as the IP69.226.103.13 name. The user follows WP:BRFA and became aware of ConnectomeWiki there. I note also that Unidesigner is probably just misguided; when challenged, the user's responses have been extremely appropriate – the problem is that they just have not engaged with Wikipedia other than their attempt to link to their project. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You found what's transparently obvious because it's not hidden.
So, please, don't bite the newcomers when it's an opportunity to teach someone something positive about the wikipedia community. Assume Good Faith can also be the first step in civility on wikipedia, imo.
This hostility toward new editors is why some wikipedia editors think it is time to test the waters to what it is like to be a newcomer at wikipedia.[31]
"On 4 September, Gene McKenna, a blogger and occasional Wikipedian (User:Mckennagene), posted his opinions regarding bullying treatment on Wikipedia, "Bullypedia, A Wikipedian Who’s Tired of Getting Beat Up"."
I did read the rules about user names before I picked mine. So did the many administrators and bureaucrats I've interacted with since I chose the user name. It looks different in edit histories than actual IPs, and clicking on it takes you to my user page rather than to my contributions. I don't use it very often, and I don't intend to keep using, but rather I intend to continue editing as an actual IP.
I am aware of those things, and advise you to be aware aware of Accusing others of bad faith. I've provided reasoned explaination with concise non-assumptive evidence. No one has been bullied, beat up, battled, bitten nor has civility been breached, as you imply. Seems you may be projecting past personal issues, and my user talk page isn't a platform for that. Thanks for the explaination of your username. Additionaly it appears the Bot issue is now stale. I think it best we all move on to more productive endevors. --Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... a favour to ask. The co-dot-cc domain is supposed to be blacklisted on Meta (i.e. site-wide), but when I used it as a test I was able to add links to test-dot-co-dot-cc. I've added a line to the local blacklist as a temporary measure while I follow up on Meta, but it seems to only block the actual co-dot-cc, and not subdomains. Any suggestions? --Ckatzchatspy05:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to remove sockpuppeteer label from my talk page
HU12 Just to let you know I removed the sockpuppeteer label, however I was told that I should have asked your permision to do so. Is it possible for it to stay off of the page? I was blocked for a week and the punishment was accepted. --Spectre7277 (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting! If variations (generic TLD's or URL redirectors) of the offending URL's start re-appearing. please report those also. The pattern of disruption shown by this person would indicate there is a good chance that he'll attempt to work around the Blacklisting. Lets hope not. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flag
Hello. Could you, please, give me rollback rights? I am not active here from time to time, but primarily I revert vandal edits, that isn't very convenient without the flag. Thanks.--//microcell19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hu12. Please don't delete my links. They are to relevant and good pictures (sometimes the best on the web). There are no ads on my site but there are about 3000 links BACK to wikipedia from my site. I have contributed articles (Cangiante, sfumato) to wikipedia and I want to contribute many more (such as combining and rewriting 'Trajans Forum' and 'Trajans Market' which I am doing right now). I am not malicious; I have helped to delete spammers in the past and will do so in the future. I am a good Wiki citizen. I reverted your deletion of the link to squinchpix at 'Trajan's Forum' (extensive and useful pictures of the 'Via Biberatica'). I don't think I deserve to be deleted. I am aware of the problem of spam on Wiki but this is not that. On the other hand you may want to go after the 24,000 links that History Channel has on Wiki. Those go to the History Channel home page and are never useful. Best, Dante4848 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Hello. I believe it is customary that when you nominate an article for deletion, you generally notify those editors that created or had a significant contribution to that article. As you managed to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam, I feel this is borderline canvassing and I would have appreciated you notifying me on my talk page that you had nominated the article for deletion. I hope that the reason I didn't get a notification was because you assumed I had eyes on the article and would see it anyway, and in good faith I'd like to believe that, but please be sure to notify me next time you nominate an article for deletion that I have had significant recent contributions to. Thanks, v/r--TParis00ap (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's best practice to wait for an administrator to review speedy candidates, rather than removal and decline on a a page that did seem to meets such criteria. While your good faith efforts at improving the article are noted, please refrain from removing speedy tags in the future. One can work on articles while speedy (or afd) tags are in place. Additionaly, there seems to be significant long term link-spam abuse by this organization that go beyond this one article. That being said, I'll be happy to drop a note on your talk in the future if an article is nominated that you have significantly contributed to. thanks for the note--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read WP:CSD, you would note the fifth paragraph "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. To avoid speedy deletion, make sure that articles provide both content and context." As I am not the creator of the article, I am well within my rights as an editor to remove a speedy tag. Also, G11 says "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." I felt that the first paragraph was not promotional and by removing the promotional material, there was still a stub. Thanks for notifying me in the future though.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have been contributing to ProjectInsight, adding references to improve the notability of the article. While updating the article to add notable references, I may have unintentionally changed the tone of the article to a less neutral point of view. For example, should the reference to the Red Herring finalist be removed? The sentence was intended to show notability of the product. Can you please point out the areas of the article that are not neutral and should be changed? I currently plan on removing the Red Herring reference and changing some of the language in the article to make it as factual and neutral as possible. Thanks for your help.--SurfAndSwim (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might like to know that some of the removal of the mapzones.org content by User:Worldenc is not always working. In some cases (like here and here), your edit just reverted to a larger image of the same content. I assume it is because the editor added the content and then resized it later. I'm not sure why it does not always work, but I thought you would want to know. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I figured that some wouldent work. There are thousands of this users spam, unfortunatly once its down to a manageable size, I'll have go back through and remove those that didn't revert. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that many of Worldenc's edits can't be "undone" because of subsequent edits to the "Demographics" sections of the articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the removal of demographic charts from several Sonoma County municipalities. While I acknowledge that your deletions were done in good faith, and I can see that such detail might not be warranted in the case of small unincorporated villages, I think that, at least in the case of larger cities and towns, the charts are appropriate content for an encyclopedia. --Stepheng3 (talk)20:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we blocking this editor? I had doubts about his contributions, but why is his population charts, etc. labeled WP:SPAM? I've got a large bunch that I haven't reverted in the articles I am tracking. He's done hundreds, if not thousands. (Not sure why we are using your page as the discussion page about Worldenc! Sorry about that!).Student7 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the lead in identifying and helping Wikipedia get rid of this material. I was mystified originally and am far from naive. I had figured him for an energetic newbie. But he really had me on this one! At best, the charts were unreadable. That annoyed me but I didn't quite know what to do about it. Can a bot be constructed to purge charts? I', sure you've thought of this already. Student7 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They all have been deleted over at commons. They have a delinking bot here on en.wikipedia which should have removed any remaining ones. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed reply. I was waiting to see if the additions continued. As you've probably seen already, user has his final/only warning. No additions since that, but keep an eye out. Good work! Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search analytics edit 2nd time
Hi Hu12,
I undid your edit to this article. My original reasoning from the first time is above and was never responded to. Please respond before editing again.
I saw the post here when I looked at your contributions history - you may want to move this discussion to the article talk page at Talk:Search analytics.
Thanks for your response. Being that these are merely entries in a table, are you sure they need to meet the notability guidelines individually? The first sentence of WP:CORP says This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. However these entries are not the subject of an article. They are merely entries in a table. I have moved this discussion to the search analytics discussion page. Talk:Search analytics
Your welcome. I added another comment there. We all assume people come to wikipedia to help build an encyclopedia, it's unfortunate when thats not the case. Thanks for the note ;)--Hu12 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw thanks. I know I've removed that site before added by IP accounts. I will continue to if I see it again. It is unfortunate that we can't figure out a way to stop editors who aren't here for the good of the project. But I think we do make a good dent in the problems. :) Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk12:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you have a vendetta against me. But please set that aside and look at the history of the page. For many years a book by Doug Oswell and Michael Rusconi called "DR. Zodiac" was there. That book is out of date, and a new version called "The Unabomber and the Zodiac" by Oswell has been published, AND ALL I DID WAS ADD THE NEW VERSION. How is that not meeting the criteria? By what right to you commit vandalism and censorship and remove a valid book - THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR YEARS - from the entry? Yes, I thought an external link to a valuable research site, a free no ads site, should be added, and tried several times, others took it down, now I give up. But don't let your anger or bias against me lead you to do the wrong thing. Add the book. Akwilks (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view...a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. 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. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate.
Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion.
You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".
This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion.
You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.
Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.
There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed your spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep it in.
You've been asked to stop, yet you continue. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Equaly Wikipedia is not a place to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell
I didn't add the book years ago. The book meets the criteria for inclusion. Will you tell us why you remove it? You are an amazongly petty and vindictive person. How does it not meet the critieria for inclusion? It is a book about the Zodiac case, has been discussed and written about, was even on TV. So why remove it? By your vendetta you have given 100 times more space and publicity than if you had just left the mention up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.183.180 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - is there anything I can do to help out at WPSPAM, more than just reporting sites like I have been? Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do the cleanup or if it's better to leave it there so you guys can do your magic and figure out what else the spammers are doing. Speaking of which - how do you do what you do? I mean, how are you finding the other related spam servers or users or google pub-ids? Are those things I'm supposed to be doing when I report? Want to help more, just not sure how. Let me know if there's anything I can do. 708:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 7. If you catch spam, nothing wrong with cleaning it up. Just be sure to use an applicable edit summary. One summary I use is "revert multi-article spam by (user name) per WP:EL, WP:SPAM". Get Navigation popups, this will help you alot, add it to your User:7/monobook.js. the linksearch is a great tool to track down other accounts/instances where the link has been added (helps build a comprehensive report). Unfortunatly it requires going through article histories (Navigation popups helps here). spam filter always logs spam activity. recent changes, look for summaries like "external links", "references" or "further reading". You could digg through the old project spam archives see if any spam has returned (warning; some pages are so big it may crash your browser, no joke). Adsense Id's are helpful when the sites are related to a single owner, thats just one way to comfirm the connection. Lets say an IP is adding one link over multiple pages (spammylink.com), check if the IP has added a different domain other than spammylink.com, then linksearch that link also. chances are you'll find more IP's adding multiple related sites. NAVpopups also have a "whatLinksHere " feature, interesting info can be found. Spam hunting can be alot of research (digging through article histories) and if you like that, it can be kind of fun while helping the project. Thats all I can think of now. I think your doing a great job and think its great you wan't to get more involved! ;)--Hu12 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do use popups and will try to master the linksearch feature. A few more specific questions:
I understand what the pubID is with google (I have one myself) just not sure how you are finding it, and how you are discovering other links which share the same pubID to add them to the list.
If I cleanup the spam myself, I assume I should still file a spam report? Otherwise how/when will someone know to track it.
Similar to the question above, who decides when something is worth of blacklisting? I'm assuming only an admin can add to the BL. Seems to me like the CDAC spam that I have flagged (currently 36 links) is pretty bad.
Whats the diff between linksummary and linksummarylive? Instructions say to use linksummary, but I see you guys changing to "live" frequnetly. Should I use live directly or leave it to you?
Adsense ID you can view the source code or "right" click the ad and open properties. the url will have the pub ID in it (doesnt click through). Some are found easily when multiple sites are added by a user, however spam search will show any matching report with the same pubID. If you cleanup spam, you should still reort it, add the linksummaryLive, so its searchable in linksearch. There is a link called "tracked" (in linksummary), this also does the same thing but shows everywhere where the tracked domain is in the linksummary template. If there is enough abuse, over a period of time and you think a site should be blacklisted, report it, and remove the "Live" in any linksummary you reported. this does not need to be done in archives. When tagging spammers, it'll help if you leave a "linksummaryLive" template with the warning, or formulate your own, like;
==Additions of http://.spammydomain ==
{{subst:uw-spam1}}--~~~~
Leaving a link or template, can help find IP's and accounts, months later. when they come back you can find the other instances of abuse. The CDAC seems weak for blacklisting, despite the volume of links, the account is blocked. If the account comes back under an IP or block evades with another userAcount, the case for blacklisting is greater. If youve removed all the links चंद्रकांत_धुतडमल (talk·contribs) added, Linksearch again and see who added the others.... may be something there, but may not.Don't mind the Q's, hopefuly the answers help.--Hu12 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How can I submit a link to be scanned for a COIbot report? The URL in question is reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#medicanalife.com. From what I can find so far from the sampling of links that I've checked, all links to the URL have been added by a single IP range; but rather than manually checking each link addition, I was hoping to let COIbot do the research for me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, the trick is User:COIBot/Poke. Add the link in a linksummary template, and wait until COIBot has worked through the queue (after that you can remove the link). Occasionally it misses the edit, if so, after some time just add the linksummary template with the link again. Hope this helps. --Dirk BeetstraTC16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, it appears that only admins can edit that page. Back in October, I turned down an offer by Hu12 to have an RfA submitted for me. I mentioned in October that I may reconsider by spring or summer of next year, if anyone is still willing to nominate me by that time. This tool gives me one more reason to consider. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding some examples more that I can think of, just thought of two regarding 'experiments in de-blacklisting' (though not conducted in that way). If you know some, they may be worth adding, they make nice background information. --Dirk BeetstraTC16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would think there might be cases where Xlink bot request didn't work and spamming continued. Perhaps not in this case, but would think there are cases where there was clear evidence and abuse to justify blacklisting, but at an attempt to "experiment", was adding to Xlinkbot first? This could illustrate an 'experiment in de-blacklisting' indirectly. --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hu12, I've just read the talk page at Theodore Kaczynski about the additional request again from User:Akwilks to add the unazod.com website for the article. I just found that this editor went to AGK. What I am concerned with is that I did tell Akwilks to be bold and add it to the article. That he uses my comment to be bold and writes to AGK like this is a content dispute between just the two of you is a major problem. As far as I can tell, there have been good responses by many different editors and consensus has been consistent to what you have said, that the site and the information is being spammed and does not belong on the site at all.
Did you get the unazod site black or white listed? I am becoming concerned with this editor since what he wrote to AGK is cherry picked comments from others like me. I said something after telling him to be bold which he totally ignored or didn't say. I think this editor is falling into the area of a tenacious editor with a possible conflict of interest and a host of other policy breaches. In closing, I don't know if you want to respond to that thread or not but I feel it is respectful for you to know about that thread that talks about you by name with a title of Arbitration. I wasn't named but I knew he was talking about me about being the one who told him add it. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk14:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you letting me know about it. It seems AGK has read the discussions (so it seems), so there is little reason to repost the obvious. Don't worry about all this. As you said, consensus has been consistant. Understand, he wouldent have had to resort to spamming and continued talk page source solicitation, if consensus was for it. Akwilks even deleted comments to hide his inapropriate behavior just munutes before posting over on AGK's page. Akwilks is just going through the Grieving process. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Godfried Toussaint is a renowned expert in computational geometry, the type of person we should encourage to be editing here despite the WP:COI nature of some of his edits. You are being extremely WP:BITEy. Please stop and repair the damage you've done. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits consist primarily of WP:REFSPAMing his own work rather than building or developing content.
He is an expert on the subjects he is editing, and is completely naturally and predictably starting out by editing the subjects he knows best. The edits are constructive and you seem to be ripping them out indiscriminately without applying any knowledge or research on whether they are improvements. You are worsening the articles you revert, and you are creating a highly unwelcoming environment for someone who could become a very helpful editor on many more subjects, which in the long term does far more damage to the project. I ask you again, please stop violating WP:BITE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't confer liscence to WP:SPAM even when its true. Repeatedly adding references to his own work, over and over is spam. How does this help? The only significant contribution he's made was to his bio, Godfried Toussaint. --Hu12 (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's adding relevant references to his work on the subjects, and especially in some of the articles he's editing (rotating calipers comes to mind) the references he's adding are the central ones of the topic. And it's not because they're unimportant topics, it's because he really is an important figure in the field. He's sourcing material that needed sourcing, and the sources he's adding are the right ones. He should be encouraged to broaden his editing focus to other articles where he's not so coflicted, but my feeling is that is likely to come with more time spent editing here. Undoing everything he edited is not that: what you're doing has the appearance of trying to drive him away, sending a message that experts are unwelcome here and should just stay away. What editor starts out in their first edits working on something they don't already know well personally? If you keep them all away when they're at that stage, we'll never have more editors who graduate from that stage to become productive more broadly across the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, Toussaint’s edits do not qualify as spam, as they are consistent with accepted standards, and are no different from what other experts would (or should) add. His continued involvement would be very valuable. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me chip in. There are indeed several which are typical references to assert certain data. But here were just 2 more references added to the list. We are not SciFinder, our aim is not to give a list of all available literature. Sure, some of the others might have to go as well, but a bit more consideration may be in place, and some discussion from his side would be welcome. --Dirk BeetstraTC10:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the points being made, I dissagree based on his edit pattern the last week. He was reminded on his talk page about the COI a few days ago, however and I see no evidence, or a willingness to engage in discussions thus far. Perhaps those more adept in his area of expertise could attempt to engage Godfried Toussaint? Hopefully, as a result, we'll see more meaningful involvement such as adding content and collaboration. --Hu12 (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In [32] I notice that the marketingzulu website has a 2000-2009 copyright notice while the hawai.edu website has a 1987 copyright notice from a book printed in paper, so the first link should be ok.
P.D. OK, I see the problem, some text in the article had been (apparently) copy/pasted from the marketingzulu website. No wonder that this person was pissed off.... I have removed the offending text and added a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.D.: About the edits done in the other article (Marketing), I can't find copyvios, and I seriously doubt that a website with a name like "quickmba.com" can be considered a reliable source for anything, as it's way too likely to be biased by comercial needs. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as if its under controll, I noticed the domain creation date for marketingzulu.com, dates; 25 Jun 2009 07:37:15. checked out a few "articles" contained on the site, and if you copy pase random chuncks of text into google, i've found duplicated text from much older sites. Looks as if info was "compiled" from other online sources rather than outright scraped. Another red flag is their claim "Since 2000, Marketing Zulu has been providing...". They only have a "one year" registration, that began last June. Typicaly long term sites, will have longer periods between having to re-register. The first reference was added by user:Shane hudson, whom appears to be the author of the successcircuit.com article 'created on February - 19 - 2009 (4 months before marketingzulu registered)--Hu12 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the posts of other users during the deletion discussion? Could you please point to this? I haven't edited anyone's post. I did, however, revert one of your edits since it was not true. That was the edit about all of the pages being started by me. In response to your "canvassing" comment, these users are mediators here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia suggests getting in touch with them. I would appreciate you removing the comment or writing it in a way that makes it clear as to what really happened. Absolutely no posts were edited... Thanks. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"And article talk page blanking?" I deleted that part of the talk page because I figured the issue was already closed, and there is an external link to the article on www.belightsoft.com in the discussion, which you are against, right? Could you please stop reporting things in an ambiguous, misleading way? This is becoming absolutely ridiculous. Now you will probably write that I am trashing your talk page? RayJazz21 (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modifying users' comments
Editing other users' comments including correcting other users' typos
"forum shopping" (also referred to as "admin shopping"), or "asking the other parent"...bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession...indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" and therefore disruptive
This is absolutely hilarious. Concerning this edit of another user's entry, I fixed a link. I can not imagine a worse Wiki transgression... Talk-page spamming? Asking moderators to step into a discussion where the focus is not at all on what needs to be done to make Wikipedia better? A discussion where people are more concerned about who wrote an article when they should be more concerned about what the article is and whether or not it is worthy of being on Wikipedia. If so called 'spam' (and I would definitely not call it spam) makes Wikipedia better, then there should be no reason to delete it. This is just a form of bullying. So yes, I did ask mediators to step in. They are part of the mediation committee. Don't like it? Not my problem. They are here to help with such issues. And, obviously, some are here to save the world from spam and not consider the quality of the content on Wikipedia. Thanks. RayJazz21 (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whitelisting for a specific page
Hey! I noticed your recent comment about allowing a link for one page only. I see how you are allowing only the home page to be linked, but how do you keep it from being added to more than one article? Is that only enforced through vigilance? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vigilence. If it is found that the whitelisted link is being added to other articles, the link can(will) be d-whited. It looks that if the article may fail if brought to AfD. Also looks as if the articles' creator might be a sock of the previous case. If the article is deleted, so should follow the allowed link. --Hu12 (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave 117.197.194.42 (talk·contribs) a uw-s4 warning, edited to indicate that it is the only warning that I indend to give, for spamming pendek.in . I'm not sure what this redirect site does, but I noticed effectiveherbalcures.info in the history.
I just checked http://pendek.in/00jhh that was added to to Certified Public Accountant, and it redirected 3 times thru 3 different domains (pendek.in/00jhh redirected to effectiveherbalcures.info/learn-to-be-a-cpa-with-accounting-sc which redirected to shareasale.com/r.cfm?b119514&U=343756&M=16972 which redirected to yaegercpareview.com). Redirect sites like this are added to the Meta(global) blacklist (m:Talk:Spam_blacklist). Just a guess, and I could be wrongbut it looks like an attempt to hide effectiveherbalcures.info, in which he's bypassing to directly link to a Shareasale affiliate link to redirect to yaegercpareview.com. Looks like some sort of sneaky scheme to get paid, by using pendek's redirect service. The warning you gave was well issued, this type of redirecting is unaceptable. Report it on meta as a Redirect/URL shortener, they'll add it.--Hu12 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't confer a liscens to WP:SPAM. Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be external link related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm to 'robertchristgau.com .--Hu12 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't link to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. Incidentally, congratulations. --Hu12 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. Please take your vandalism of an existing article to the administrators for comment. There is nothing wrong with the links. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism. Making accusations of bad faith (such as Vandalism) can be inflammatory and can be seen as a personal attack if vandalism is alleged without clear evidence of actually vandalism. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. Which you have not done. Arguments of usefull do not make for exemption of inclusion guidelines. It seems you may have a personal interest in these links, and there are also guidelines concerning this, and for Editors who have a conflict of interest. I also will remind you of WP:3RR.--Hu12 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly you have a Conflict of interest. At this point it it's best to stay away from editing or linking to topics which you are directly related. Some things to keep in mind before proceding any further;
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
i dont appreciate you refering to my contributions as "Just Spam" when on the Shakespears Sister page i added valuable information, which you or someone else has just re worded and removed my wording as spam. That isnt very fare. I feel I am just being targeted now, and anything I contribute is being removed. I think you are doing a nice job here, and i appreciate you looking after this place.
92.13.53.79 (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These sites are in my name as i purchased them you dumb gits! it would be illegal for me to purchase these in another name, for billing issues! You obviously know nothing of web mastering! How on earth can you claim that shakespearssister.co.uk isnt official, check Shakespears Sister latest album, Songs From The Red Room, and Jacquie's Freak Time Viewing CD, the addresses are printed on the inlay card you trollops! Also, see the Shakespears Sister official myspace page, the site is linked there! I am contacting wikipedia, and reporting you lot for "personal attacks", and targetting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antmarkhemingway (talk • contribs)
Curious about a page
I'm just curious as to why this page [35] was changed to redirect to a stub page. It looked like this [36] before. It had some great information before that was a good reference and now, there is none.... Just wondering. I havn't/didn't contribute to it. I just saw value in this page as a reference.Beefstation (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefstation (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't know who to report this do, but you seem to be someone who'd know. I've noticed that there's a number of Zazzle.com links on many pages that are against the WP:EL guidelines. For example, a lot of South Park episodes articles that have inline cites that are really just links to tshirt pages (a violation of WP:CITE and WP:RS as well). It's essentially like linking to Amazon pages which is explicitely warned against in the guidelines. In many cases, it's just linked in the External Links section. What can be done about this form of spam, aside from tediously removing all the links manually?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another adsense linkfarm
... with the obligatory MFA sites, of course. See WikiProject Spam report. I intend to pursue blacklisting for this pile of crap, but:
I'm not too sure whether I've got all the domains (69 so far, perhaps I should have left that IP spam a bit further.) Can you check this?
Also, can you COIBot poke these as I am concerned that some of the Czech town ones have been x-wiki spammed, like the Dubai ones. All the x-wiki spamsearches are too slow (Eagle's especially, and I don't want to run my multithreaded one - might overwhelm the servers).
Hi, i'm new to this talk page thing and as i cant seem to private message you, i'll hope this is the right place, i left a post in the blacklisting section of wikipedia about my site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#AnimeNfo.com
you've said my claims are false and we still violate wikipedia copyright rules, i was wondering if i could see some evidence of this, whilst you decide to keep our page off wikipedia -
riokowashere@hotmail.com is my mail if you need that or post here, whatever. thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.24.81 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can you look at this before it gets archived accidentally
Being discussed here. Care to describe the consensus on how to deal with spammers who add link that turn out to be mostly useful? You're much better than I when it comes up at WP:RSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutech and speedy delete
I originally tagged the Neutech article as spam and subsequently saw the original editor remove the speedy delete designation. I replaced it and left a message about it on his talk page but rather than using "hangon" as suggested, the editor deleted the speedy tag again. Since you'd weighed in on this user about this company once before I figured you might want to close the loop here. My guess is that the editor is working in good faith and I don't think it's my place to confront the edits at this point. Have a warm day. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
External Google Map Links in SEPTA articles
I've been working to bring additional useful info to the SEPTA articles (particularly the Market-Frankfort line), and noted in the recent revision history that someone added an external link to a Google map image of the line; but also saw that it was quickly removed as being spam. Looking at the link itself via the diff page, it looks like a perfectly reasonable addition to the article, and i can't understand why it was marked as spam in the first place. Granted, the user that added it seemed to have issues with consensus building, edit warring, and personal attacks; but the intent was still Good Faith. I'm not suggesting any kind of removal of their ban (that's not my fight, they can earn it themselves if they're interested); but i would support the re-addition of the google map link. I would like to put it back; but i'm not going to stick my nose out to add good data if the only thing it will get me is a cauliflower schnoz. Would you consider taking a look at the link itself and allow me to add it back to the MFSL page? If not, would you be willing to discuss your reasoning why? Hiroe (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ResearchGate
Hello, I'm new, but I have seen you added the COI tag to ResearchGate with the request to discuss further on the article's talk page. Without discussion, the tag has now been removed by a user who is definitely involved with ResearchGate (see contributions), and I'm not sure if the conflict has really been resolved. The article indeed seems to be pushed by 1-2 people involved with the subject. Thanks for any feedback! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.48.12 (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hu12... long time no speak. I wanted to pick your brain re: this account Seems to me it is created as a single purpose account trying to maintain links to 411drum.com on Wikipedia. Do you concur? Have a nice day! Wiki libs (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation About Edited Page
Last year you flagged secondmarket. I have been diligently editing the page for the past year and was planning to submit it for your approval before putting it up on the public site but another user published it before I had a chance. How do I prevent another user from submitting a page that has not been fully vetted again?
18:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users
Do you know what's going on with forensicexaminder.com? From what I can tell from the website, it's reliable as a source, but I keep getting spam warnings when I try to add it to articles or talk pages. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding whitelisting
Hi, user Hu12. I just joined wikipedia to make an official page for my website www.aspnetbook.com but when i just searched through, i saw that is has been warned for spamming. So what should i do to revoke this? i am not sure of the procedure. THanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas606 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is it about my external links was it you did not like? I don't really understand what it is you are getting at. I think all of the criteria of my links were okay. Yes it is a blog but this an external pdf of the document mentioned. Just make sure you get past the first page. It is a government doc with unlimited distribution. I guess what I am saying is could you tell me what the problem is in you own words and not in a prepared legal context. I am not that good at legal wording. Any help would be great this was the first time I tried to add anything. PS. I am not connected to this blog in any way either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rand21 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 16 December 2010
Hi Rand21. Your contributions to wikipedia consist only of adding external links and tripped our WP:Spam filter. Looking through those links, they all are an 800 page pdf file, which gives very little context to why it was added. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. here's a bit more on Citing sources. Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for the information Hu12 I will remember that.
junkfooddinner.com
External links I posted were deleted and I'm wondering why. They were links posted on the pages of GWAR, Dave Brockie and Frank Hennenlotter directing readers to an interview with the aforementioned artists. Each page has links to other reviews with other media outlets. I'm curious about the double standard. Why are some external links to interviews okay and mine apparently aren't?
Timdeath (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, to get this straight - I've been posting links on wiki pages for Dave Brockie/Gwar, Alex Winter and Frank Hennenlotter. The Dave Brockie pages already has 2 external links to other interviews (Oderous interviewed on Metal Rules! Radio episode 12 and
Interview with Oderus Urungus at ion magazine). I'm asking this: Is my interview link somehow "less important" than these or less relevant? Or am I being denied simply because I happened to post the links in rapid succession? Because the latter seems to be the only distinction between my links and other similar links.
Timdeath (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; So just pointing out that other links exists in an article doesn't prove that your link should also exist.
Several concerns. junkfooddinner.com is a podcast, blog and personal website. Second, its only a few months old, appears non-notable nor authorative enough for inclusion. Thirdly, Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links to junkfooddinner.com which is considered WP:Spam, and quite possibly a Conflict of interest.
Feedback on your recent undo's of competitor links
We were trying to add a fact that pages like Justanswer.com, Answers.com have competitors. I'm not sure how and why you will keep undoing those additions simply quoting generic guidelines of WP:NOT. I would like to strongly object to your undoings. Where is the authenticity here. Or are we confusing with other spammers or marketeers?? Or are you getting paid by these sites to keep the pages having their own content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.224.162 (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions to wikipedia under multiple IP's consist entirely of adding external commercial links and is considered WP:Spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm.
"we would like to have information about our client's website but through a legitimate way- just like others have"[37]
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than wikipedia. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback follow up questions
Hu, Can you prove without any doubt that most of the internet company and other corporate information on Wikipedia is not created by media marketing companies??? I know you can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.132.183 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not other marketeers exist on wikipedia is irrelevent, nor does it make for exemption of official Wikipedia policies. The clear evidence, in this case, shows you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting your company, products and services in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Foster Wallace edit
Hey Hu12, I just reverted an edit you did to the David Foster Wallace page here that looked like you mangled a bit. I then took out a couple of links that I thought maybe were what you were trying to get at and kept one that looked OK. Just a heads up in case I only made it worse. SQGibbon (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hu12. You have new messages at WT:BIRD. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Rare quality content
Dear Hu12, I highly respect your and everybody else's efforts at making and keeping Wikipedia a spam-free zone. However, overly zealous actions lead to less contributions by turning people off who try to add value added content, often to rather obscure topics where it is difficult to find quality information elsewhere. If you have a closer look at some of the links you have removed you will find that there is much that has gone lost. Just to cite you one example: the Kumbh Mela article contains lots of information that you won't find anywhere else as I conducted months of research on this topic in the Library of Congress as well as on the spot during several Kumbh Melas. I could go on giving you many more examples. Most of the users of Wikipedia who are interested in these topics will definitely not agree to the removal. I would recommend that I re-add all the most important links for Wikipedia users to use (being extra careful not include any links that might appear promotional). Agreed?
Culturalexchange (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Culturalexchange[reply]
External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Additionaly your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote "Knowledge Must". Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Culturalexchange (active IP today 122.176.245.61, ) and the massive amounts of IP's you've used (found here), consist entirely of spamming links and promoting Knowledge Must, which is considered WP:Spam. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen that you also recommend to remove the entries on Knowledge Must and Sound Tamasha. Both of these are social businesses reinvesting all profits for the common good. Both have been widely featured in reputable international media, even further than the references listed there by now. Examples are Rolling Stone Magazine, Sleek Magazine, Deccan Chronicle, Berliner Morgenpost, and so on. Your statement "Has a few links but they seem to be blogs, press releases and trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." will not hold up to closer scrutiny. I kindly ask you to remove the for deletion requests. Thank you.
Culturalexchange (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Culturalexchange[reply]
The prima facie evidence still remains. Despite the warnings, you continue to add bloglinks [38][39][40][41], in direct violation of Wikipedias External links and anti-spam guidelines. Arguments of "Merit" is neither a trump card nor does it make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. Rationale for placing any link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage. It is quite evident that your account and IP's are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Knowledge Must [42].
Here are some additional Wikipedia rules that govern this issue:
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Hi there. I saw you were removing a bunch of the Fabrykanina reviews from industrial music articles. I wanted to let you know about some discussion that had gone on about that, in case this comes up again later as an issue. This talk page has a summary of what has occurred. I noticed the person in question responded to the archived RSN conversation in this edit. There's nothing else to be done right now, as they seem to have stopped editing, but it seemed like it might be good to make an admin aware for future reference. —Torchiesttalk/edits18:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I've personally removed dozens of links over the past six months or so, but it's slow going, especially if other edits have occurred after the spamming. It was even slower before I had gained rollback privileges! Again, thanks for taking the additional steps. —Torchiesttalk/edits18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Something has come up with regards to this issue. The person adding these links contacted one of the bands in question. The head of that band got in touch with me to get more information. He believes the site is a legitimate, professional music magazine, and has worked with the editor-in-chief (who is the person adding the links) in the past. I'm in something of a bind on this now, as I'd like to help him out, but it seems like policy goes against the additions. Is it possible we've misread this site, and it actually qualifies as a reliable source? That was my initial concern a few months ago. How does that mesh with the spamming and conflict of interest concerns? I'm preparing a response explaining what has happened, and suggesting the original link submitter needs to actually make their case for the additions. Thanks for your thoughts on this. —Torchiesttalk/edits16:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where to begin....
Mass Spamming and abuse Case of Fabryka Industrial Rock magazine
Long term spamming (since 2006) along with Linkfarming.
"reviews are written and posted by me on my own industrial rock magazine, Fabryka"[43]
"editor-in-chief, journalist, webmaster and art director of online magazine dedicated to industrial rock/metal style of music - Fabryka Industrial Rock"[44]
"if you prefer to show asslicking reviews only then you are not providing reliable sources "[45]
'''Wikipedia ... supports lies only, especially when it comes to music and reviews. Then it scams for money for providing lies to the public....[46]
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Long term spamming (since 2006), Hundreds of links, two deleted "spamvertizing articles", obvious WP:SPA accounts, 28 clearly related IP accounts which exists for the sole and primary purpose of promoting Fabryka and its website in blatent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Sounds like they are continuing their campaign to exploit Wikipedia by Source soliciting you privately for the links inclusion. I would take great offence to that. --Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this ... earlier this week I had noticed the page 11 item on their most recent issue, but forgot when I got back to my main system to act on it myself (I only use my admin profile from that system). I should have submitted the link at WP:SBL for someone else to act one when I had been thinking of it.
Incidentally, I don't know if the subjects know they are mentioned there. Should a notice be given on their talk pages, or alternately to their linked email accounts, so that they are aware of the article? --- Barek (talk) - 18:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A private note to their e-mail is probably the most descerete way, along with a talk page note stating they have an e-mail. I'd suspect there may be another URL or website created for the same purpose, so we should all keep an eye out for that. Good work on gathering all that data;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the wikipedia editor who originally contributed the article tono humano to which a new user User:Lopezcano contributed several academic pdfs in Spanish to the article - most of which he himself wrote and then (as far as I can see) followed Wikipedia guidelines by tagging himself "conflict of interest". I saw the edits when they were done and meant to talk to User:Lopezcano to explain to him the rules and then I would delete and resubmit (since they are actually legitimate academic papers in a field where research is lacking.. and if I'd have been aware of them I would certainly have linked them). Unfortunately I was busy and forgot to contact him. As it is I have now added the links, not as "Bibliography", but as in-line references to the relevant content. It looks to me that this is a case of a newbie trying to be over-honest. But could you please verify that, that he tagged/declared himself "conflict of interest" rather than a bot/editor doing it. If so then I feel slightly guilty as the article contributor for not acting in a timely manner to help him, and then he gets blocked. Your advice/opinion please? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look maybe he didn't tag/declare himself (?). Is the Tag: possible conflict of interest bot-generated? If it is let me know and I'll re-delete those refs which are self authored, but if you don't mind keep the ones by the other academics added at the same time. Many thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm reaching out to you because of your involvement in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Dec 1#eastsidesun.com. I'm one of the four editors "featured" in the eastsidesun.com attack piece, and threatened with outing. Lately with this edit [48], an IP involved with the earlier issues has vandalized my userpage in a threatening fashion. The text implies that they have some kind of access to my computer. Do you have any suggestions for action via the Wikipedia community at this point? Thanks. — Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note from a talk page stalker (the friendly sort). The edit has been deleted so I can't see what exactly was said. General advice is not to confirm or deny that any specific "outing" information is accurate and to request WP:OVERSIGHT (by email is the best way) or at least Revdel. I note the IP address responsible has now been blocked. Regarding access to your computer, this sort of "hacking" is indeed possible, but in my experience is extremely uncommon. The fact that the user concerned has been using the same IP address for nearly two months is a likely indication they are not especially technically skilled in that area. It's worth taking appropriate precautions against phishing, malware etc of course, but any personal information they may or may not have is more likely to have been obtained by other means. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Threats of taking over your computer or threats of hacking into your system are usually empty threats; however, there's always a chance that they have some packaged tool that they acquired somehow. If you received a recent phishing attempt with an attachment that you openned, then it would be a good idea to run a full malware and virus scan with current security software, just to be safe.
As Demiurge mentioned, chances are that if they acquire any information, it more than likely came from other means; but it's always good practice to keep security software updated and scanning your system as a precaution. If you don't have any, email me with which OS you're using, and I can suggest some free alternatives. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry your going through this, Brianhe. Not much more I can add to the great advice above, however i would suggest you carefully select whom you correspond with in your email. Do Not reply, or even correspond with suspicious or suspected emails. Attachments, including pictures, could contain malicious code. Replying to an email may devulge your IP or location ect. delete on sight. Clearly they are attempting to upset you, and its fustrating, however there is a high probability that these are just empty threats. --Hu12 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice, Hu, Demimurge and Barek. I have what I think is decent security at home including strong passwords and antivirus software. As soon as I saw the vandalism I was 99% sure that it was a bluff but it did have to be taken seriously nonetheless. — Brianhe (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blacklist will only catch URLs (eg: prefixed with http://), you need an edit filter for catching plain text without the prefix. --Versageek23:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it had something to do with the markup he was trying to put the URL into.. it clearly broke everything on the page from the insertion point down. His later attempts omitted the http:// . --Versageek03:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, What Versageek said. I believe there is a word or phrase blacklist somewhere (I forgot where), bolenreport should be added if Text bombing this blacklisted site continues..--Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You probably didn't notice, but that discussion is archived. I was thinking of moving it back to RSN, but I think a new discussion would be better. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After my last comment i noticed that it was archived...LOL. Wondering why it was so quiet in there.. Agree, more discussion is needed. They clearly fail RS.--Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed you've been removing the spam entries from the Zagat Blog. I've got no issue with that, but I'm worried that some edits such as this one may be removing actual important information that's easily citable from another source but the deletion may go unnoticed. This really isn't a huge issue, and I know removing the spam link is probably more important, but I just wanted to alert you to it. Thanks so much for your time!--Yaksar(let's chat)22:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Yaksar. Glad you caught that, it should be easily citable (if needed), seems there are plenty of valid and Reliable sources availiable. If your curious about the spam case, it can be found here.--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes
Thanks for leaving a note about the deletions you made, I appreciate it. I did see the notice that my edits had been flagged. After reviewing the external links guidelines, I added more because I did not think they were in violation of the intended use of that section. Rotten Tomatoes is specifically listed in the style guidelines for movie pages in both the Critical Reception and External Links sections; also, while the guidelines for actor pages are less specific, Rotten Tomatoes is in the Films WikiProject list of acceptable resources. Given that this information is actively solicited, it would be great to hear your feedback about the appropriate way to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.70.208 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent spamming is unaceptable, see WP:LINKSPAM. Spaming Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools Violates our external links policy, WP:ELNO #15. Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of adding links in apparent violation our anti-spam guidelines is subject to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption. Contribute cited text and content, not just bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link-farm. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto rottentomatoes.com, right?--Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If you're interested in cleaning up that category, BTW, you might want to start with the ones listed at User:AnomieBOT/OrphanReferenceFixer log as "Scan complete. The following references could not be found" or "too b0rken to fix"; Fluorine, for example, is in the cat now but should be fixed by AnomieBOT in a little over 20 minutes (assuming no one else edits the page until then). Anomie⚔15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dayn Perry
Hi there, I just wanted to check in as to why you removed the two external links on Perry's page, one to his contributions to FanGraphs/NotGraphs and one to an 30 something minute long interview he gave, but left a defunct link to Foxsports and a link to a blog whose last post says: "Hello, loyal readers (both of you). As you may have noticed, the cobwebs have descended upon this place. That’s mostly because I’ve joined the esteemed staff of NotGraphs and am regularly blogging about the lighter side of baseball over yonder in those parts. Some come and join us. Once more, with feeling: NotGraphs.
As for this space, I’ll (maybe) occasionally throw up the odd post every now and again, but for the time being my blogging energies will be applied toward — wait for it — NotGraphs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.43.248 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I sent you an email using the 'E-Mail this user' function, but I thought this might be the better place to contact you. I'm trying to create a page for the International Osteoporosis Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Osteoporosis_Foundation). The page is currently protected and can be edited only by admin, as it seems in 2008 it was created numerous times and then deleted by you for 'repeated recreation of copyright infringement'.
I'm not sure who it was trying to create the page back then, but I'd like to give it another go. And do it right this time. Would appeciate your feedback (and also undeleting the page so it can be fixed).
Hi, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I really appreciate it. I’ve had a good read through the guidelines you provided and have created a page about the International Osteoporosis Foundation I believe is neutral, not a piece of advertising and is referenced.
Understand that being the paid Communications Coordinator for IOF, you do have a conflict of interest, so neutrality cannot be expected. With that stated, the references used seem mostly trivial or incidental coverage by secondary sources, which is not sufficient to establish notability. Nor would press releases. Unfortunatly many of the same similarities exist with your version, the deleted versions[49][50][51][52][53] and with those created on multiple language wiki's during the fist marketing campaign[54][55][56][57]. This gives me serious pause and concern. Unfortunately, the previously created Single purpose accounts for IOF;
Their only contributions to Wikipedia are to promote IOF's adgenda also, not wikipedias. Let me ask, You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote the International Osteoporosis Foundation, right?--Hu12 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks again for the quick response. Of course I realise that I am not neutral (which is why I disclosed my occupation). However, I have endeavoured to create a page that is factual. In answer to your question, yes my desire is to improve Wikipedia. I believe Wikipedia would be improved by a page on IOF, as it is notable for being the world’s largest alliance of bone disease-related health professionals and organisations. There are many examples on Wikipedia of similar international health organisations that are notable in their own fields. Sorry, I don’t seem to be able to view the previous deleted versions (and have no knowledge who created them)? I have had a good look at the Wikipedia pages of other health-based NGOs, and made changes so the IOF page is in line with them (I have added peer-reviewed journals published, which many pages seem to do). I guess my question is, what changes could be made (perhaps you could point me towards a good example of a health-NGO page?) to satisfy you that this page is noteable and will be an improvement to Wikipedia? Inyon011 (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biblewalks
Hi, I see that you are removing old refs to Biblewalks: I was actually thinking of asking for a discussion of lifting the ban on this site.
Just for the record: I have nothing to do with the site...I do not know the people behind it, and I disagree about some (quite a lot, in fact,) of the stuff there, however, it *does* have some very useful maps and pictures. Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun and al-Majdal, Tiberias are just two articles I have worked on, and where I thought I would add Biblewalks as an external link...but could not. Perhaps we could take the discussion to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration?
And yeah: I do see that User:Biblewalks did behave in a rather clueless manner when they arrived here, but that does not mean that the site itself is totally useless. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned in the current discussion about it, I'm in agreement with the other Administrators that if a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor, such as yourself, can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source. Wikipedia needs content, not links anyway;). --Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
true, but it is difficult for me to add arial photos of those specific places to wikipedia...unless I hire a plane and start taking pictures :-) Anyway, thanks for the link, I have already gone to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, and asked to get links to those two pages appoved. If that works out, then I´m quite happy with asking for "unblocking" of links on a case-by-case -basis. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spam Links?
Hi HU12
There is obviously something up with the URLS that you have removed from the Flavivirus page. From just following the links they look fine to me. One of them (ViPR) is funded by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases & National Institutes of Health. For future reference/my editing - how do you know they are spam? Jennifer_Rfm (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jennifer. For viprbrc.org you can tell by the contribs of Special:Contributions/Bpickett. Clear spamming, and does not seem to be have been added for verifying article content. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In the case of the other link, (denguevirusnet.com), you can see from my Spam report, it was a part of a large scale spam campaign involving the same owner adding 4 of his/her sites, en mass, in multiple articles over this and multitude of various language wikis. This site and the adsense related have been blacklisted. However, I added back ViPR. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you are engaged in your Twickline hunt, bear in mind that he is also closely connected with the website wine-reviews.net. I have just purged the three references that existed to the site but it's worth watching to see whether the site reappears and if so which user is doing it. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#helium.com problem, would you help me figure out what went wrong with my combination of blacklist and whitelist entries for helium.com? I blacklisted the site, but tried to whitelist specific pages (such as the home page) and yet I am still able to add any helium.com link to articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing to merge these talk pages to Wikipedia:Blocked external links and subpages. The main reason is to remove the implication of "spam" and provide a somewhat more visible and centralized location, and a slightly more sane process. I am contacting you because you are or have been involved with spam blacklisting in the past. Please post any comments you may have at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Request
Hi. I was approached on IRC by User:Ottermaton asking for help with his block. You blocked him as a sock of User:Twickline. AFter reviewing their edits, I don't think they are the same person. Ottermaton started working the article earlier than Twickline. S/he also used a different capitalization and writing style - where Twickline simply copied/pasted a description, Ottermaton actually seems to have put some work into the article. If you have a moment, could you review their unblock request? Thanks! TNXMan02:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there were a couple of IP's, one of which was removing a site called ghostsearchuk.co.uk. Interestly both are by "Steve Moyle Web Design". smells a bit like SEO by Steve Moyle. --Hu12 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible legal threats
A Wikipedia user who has published a criticism of WP has been in touch with me about an individual who is seriously inflamed about the title of the page User:Hu12/Jon Dattorro Convex Optimization Spam — which is visible to Google when one searches "JON + DOTTORRO + WIKI"... Basically, the subject of this page, a banned person who promoted his research via WP, feels that the intent of the page is to be found by Google and that its content is defamatory: the subject feels he is many things, but not a "spammer." There are apparently plans for a lawsuit, my source tells me, and he has urged me to take action to remove the threat to WP by having the page in question altered.
I emphasize that I am not making this threat, nor is my source, but rather that it is coming from the original banned subject of the page. I would urge you to retitle or to somehow hide the page from Google. While we Wikipedians understand what a "spammer" is in WP terms, the word has a greater meaning outside the project. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so I would urge you to amend the title of this and similar pages, at a minimum. Best regards. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I really need to clean my watchlist so I don't feel the urge to butt in to other people's talk pages.)
This is bizarre. A user subpage clearly represents the personal views and work of that user calling a spade a spade, not Wikipedia taking any position. That someone may disagree with the opinion, claiming the intent is to defame on Google searches, seems pretty shaky. It's no big deal to rename a few pages on WP:NPA compliance grounds, but if it were me I'd ask our Wiki foundation attorney User:Mike Godwin for advice or clarification on the matter. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that's an unusual situation and perhaps without merit, but I'm getting a pretty hard push to address this from my source, as a potential serious issue developing for WP. I am of no particular opinion as whether the complaint has the slightest merit, I pass along the information to others it may concern for what it's worth. Thanks for the advice on contacting Mike Godwin, I shall. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at Mr Godwin's talk page, it seems he recently left the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't know who replaced him but perhaps he might tell you if you write to him. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin has gone (see Signpost article). Do not contact him. My opinion is that we editors should not get involved in debating the merits of legal issues. On a courtesy issue (towards the banned person), I think the next step for anyone wanting to pursue this (if Hu12 is currently away) would be to ask at WP:ANI whether it would be appropriate to add __NOINDEX__ on the specified pages (see Help:Magic words). That should be discussed in terms of courtesy. Anyone wanting to discuss the legal issues should contact WikiMedia (I think at foundation:Contact us). Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in debating the merits either. New General Counsel doesn't take over until 3/7, I think. Searching for a current email address now. I don't think an ANI debate would help much, as that debate would revolve around specific legal issues not answerable by laypeople. Carrite (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The options, as I see them:
Wait for Hu12 to return - could be in hours,days, or weeks - no way to tell
Post at ANI - although it's not really an ANI type issue
Leave a message on Jimbo's talk page - not sure if he would have a response prior to the start of the new General Counsel, but can try.
Do nothing
Use IAR and BOLD to either add __NOINDEX__ or to rename and/or edit-out problematic content on the page (even with changes, could take quite a while for the Google cache to reset itself).
Personally, I agree with the last option: just add __NOINDEX__, comment-out any problematic text, and rename the page(s). Then leave a courtesy note for Hu12. --- Barek (talk) - 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it makes me uncomfortable, I have done that. My apologies. I have also apprised new counsel Geoff Brigham of the situation. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that case. Philippe (WMF) added the __NOINDEX__, which seems sufficient. Links to evidence of that users own actions on wikipedia, does not defamation make, nor would having said case evidence in my userspace. Based on the history, this would appear more a continued attempt to advance that individuals agenda, rather than anything resembling substance or merit.
"...my source tells me, and he has urged me to take action to remove the threat to WP by having the page in question altered"
While I assume your good faith, Carrite, I do question the proxy recrutment means in which this topic has re-emerged. Would tend to think multiple page blankings, edits and moves within anothers userspace a bit rash, and perhaps premature considering its based entirely on some 3rd party "anonymous" hearsay based on a meritless accusation. --Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Glad you're back. First: you personally are in the line of fire in a prospective lawsuit. I do not say this as a threat myself, nor as a threat from my source, but I do say this as a statement of fact. In my judgment, which you may fault, there was a BIG BLP threat which needed immediate remedy. Whereas it is legally difficult for a plaintive to get to the project, it may (or may not) be possible for them to get to you personally. Trust me when I say that I'm trying to look out for you personally here. The attorney of the Wikipedia Foundation has been apprised of the situation and I invite you to contact them for their professional opinion. As for "multiple blankings," your main important page is unharmed save for the removal of one word. If you have difficulty finding it, drop me a line on my own talk page and I will help you to locate it. It is still there. The main thing is to make this page blind to Google search, which I tried to do. I apologize for taking action without you, but I felt time of the essence and did my best for you and the project. Revert my actions if you will. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to contact me off list and I will give you the name of my source and additional information which I do not wish to post publicly. Tim. MutantPop@aol.com. Carrite (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your good faith and concern Carrite and it is appreciated. However, the actions of Jon Dattorro on wikipedia as evidenced by his own edit history, is not a legal or BLP concern. Rather, when a user such as Jon Dattorro, attacks, spams, harasses, threatens both wikipedia and its users on wikipedia, it becomes a most serious concern, as evidenced below;
Jon Dattorro Convex Optimization Spam and harassment
Jon Dattorro Convex Optimization Spam and harassment
Uses his Websites to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia
An attack site is a site outside Wikipedia that engages in any of the following:
Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors;
used to impugn a person's character
Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians
An attack site might be run by an individual, in the form of a private website or a blog, or it could be a virtual community, such as another wiki or discussion forum.
"Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." [2]
"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [3]
"Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions." [4]
"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." [5]
Long term abuse and self promotion. Persistent spamming despite multiple/multi-year warnings. Abusing multiple accounts, persistant harassment, both on Wikipedia and through use of the email system. Additionaly used convexoptimization.com as an attack site for the harrassment of Wikipedians and sponsored efforts to impugn the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors[58][59][60][61][62][6][7]. Additionaly, the accounts were created and exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting Jon Dattorro and his related websites in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Unfortunatly the Law Of Unintended Consequences seems to be at play here which is no fault of wikipedia or those administrators who attempted to mitigate the disruption caused by user Dattorro. Based on the history above, this would appear more a continued attempt to advance that individuals agenda, rather than anything resembling legal substance or merit. Pending any additional[63] contact by the WMF, 3rd party "anonymous" hearsay based on a meritless accusation is just that.--Hu12 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny URL
Hi Hu12, I have a question. I see that tinyURLs are blacklisted; I could not find out why, and though there seem to be exceptions, I can't read the code on MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. I have a URL (in Sonja Barend, first item in bibliography) that has square brackets in it (a few German news sites do the same thing) and I thought a tiny URL might save the day. Do you have any advice? Can the specific URL (tinyurl.com/4f6yodl) be allowed? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hu12 is away atm. They're blacklisted because of the high probability of misuse, from hiding spam links to delivering malware. At any rate, it is easy to have a URL that contains square brackets, see Percent-encoding (for example, replace '[' with '%5B'). Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I didn't know that (actually, this was the first time I used it myself). I see you have taken care of the problem--thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spam whitelist request
Hello Hu12,
last week, as requested by user Unscintillating, you whitelisted a blog post by Rob Stapleton on the Examiner.com. By coincidence, a couple of days later I came across another post by the same blogger, which I found relevant and tried to refer to, and that is how I discovered this whole business of the Spam whitelist and the fact that the Examiner.com has got a reputation issue regarding spam.
Nevertheless, in my view the post in question is of decent quality and would help improve the article I'm working on (2010 Alaska C-17 crash), so I wonder if my request could be addressed the same way as Unscintillating's one. Cheers.
--Giuliopp (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hu12, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kathleen Ngale, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers20:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abinger Hammer External Links
I have no axe to grind on this issue; I just want to understand: Why you consider hammerpond.org.uk a spam or conflict of interest link? It doesn't seem to be advertising or promoting anything? Bagunceiro (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary should help answer that question. see also; Special:Contributions/86.177.88.154, WP:ELNO #'s 4 and 11 and whois. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. This account, by adding the same link over and over, appears and based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting that one website. The big picture here shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. The internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a Linkfarm to that content.--Hu12 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camerapedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dirk BeetstraTC10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re addition of links to irangers site
Hello. Probably none of my business, but you don't think you might have gone in a bit heavy with the "If you continue spamming Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing" bit of this edit? The links had been noticed and removed, I'd explained why they weren't acceptable, the editor said fair enough and they'd stop, and they appeared to have done so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, if there wasn't a Multiple account issue. Multiple account spamming is never a sign of good faith, particularly when there is COI;
Thanks for your explanation. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I tend to find that where an editor reacts the way that this one did, they're more than likely acting through inexperience rather than malice. Had a quick glance at your spam case: I'm not acquainted with Scottish football sites in general, but the url hibernianfc.co.uk is the official website of the Scottish Premier League club Hibernian F.C.. Have you notified Jmorrison230582 that he's mentioned in the spam case? he's an experienced and knowledgeable editor in the field of Scottish football, so may be able to help. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the prod tag you placed on Project Syndicate, as it was discussed at AfD in 2006 and therefore is ineligible for prod. Compliance with process is the only reason I did this; do not interpret it as my endorsement for keeping the article. I have no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. Can you recomend any good translaters? I tried to find the right edit summary like this, so there would be no confusion. oh well.--Hu12 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, I think the matter has been resolved. Don't worry, generally fi.wiki users understand English just fine (and those who don't can always ask someone who does). Jafeluv (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hu12. Thanks for the message - a tad disappointed in truth, I added links in the best interest of the Everton Football Club community. For a few of the clubs players, I linked to a website (of which I'm not affiliated with, other than being a visitor) which archives related news to each player. It's very useful. So if I search Phil Jagielka on Wikipedia, an external link to http://www.grandoldteam.com/club/squad/12 would then show his related news articles. I didn't see a problem, having read the guide? But hey, just a shame. (Evertonfan88 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, I've just become aware of a COI issue with the Wikipedia entries I have been adding on behalf of Steve (my name is Dwayne Smith and I'm an employee of Steve Parish Publishing). My apologies for this, I've been trying to read as much as I can about contributing to Wiki but there's just so much to get through (this morning I realised there was a better way to cite material and I've been fixing things since). Is there a way that Steve can contribute the extensive information his publishing company has collected over the past 20 years without causing offense? Thanks for your help. Steve Parish (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Steve Parish Publishing . Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. In addition, Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding Steve Parish PublishingWP:REFSPAM and is considered spamming. No matter how well intentioned, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote Steve Parish Publishing . Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines including wikipedias fundamental principle in keeping a Neutral point of view. --Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. My error. We could capitalize it SOP, might avoid future spelling edits. thanks for the note. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this has been going on for a while. I see no other edits (including the three related IP's) other than adding his two adsense related sites. See Spam report. Level three warning given. thanks Snowmanradio--Hu12 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actiTIME page deletion - Please restore
~~ Alyadem Could you please explain why the actiTIME page was deleted?
I have consulted a number of Wiki admins and they even changed it so to comply with the rules, the last thing was needed is the citation. So I added appropriate links and citations. It has been here for about a year.
If you refer to the deletion 2007 - this is not biased - there was another article with another text (that didn't comply with Wiki rules). The article 2010 complied with the rules. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyadem (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whie I did reference the other article, and the previous AFD discussion in the "also" section, the deletion was for advertising or promotion. It does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Please feel free to request a Deletion Review, however your contributions to wikipedia, consist entirely of promoting ActiTIME. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be ActiTIME related only. Please do not continue to create articles about your own products on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote ActiTIME right? --Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alyadem Then I guess every page of the software from the list Comparison_of_time_tracking_software should be deleted as well. If I add history note and company information will it still be promo article? As I didn't have intention advertise the product- just to provide people with the information. Thanks in advance! —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
Hello. I have cancelled your removal of the article, making it a redirect, because I am pretty sure there is enough things to say on the subject to have a separate article. Kind regards, Freewol (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links to archdaily.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be archdaily.com related only. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote archdaily.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited some other articles as well, but as a whole, you're right - mostly archdaily related. It's my go-to resource for news on the subject and I noticed that other articles had external links to interviews, which was what I was trying to provide in my own additions. If I went about it in the wrong way, I apologize, I'm new to this place. How should I move forward? I am trying to contribute valuable content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architectcheck (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
Not to bite your nose off, but I believe you may have jumped the gun in your reverting two edits by user User:Tommyallen789 (no doubt in good faith), and have reverted your reversions, as his edit's were not advertising, as you believed them to be. They were to the articles Oenothera biennis and Stinging nettle.
Please go to NatureManitoba.ca's 'about us' page, and you will find the following passage:
' Nature Manitoba is a not-for-profit organization that was founded in 1920 as the Natural History Society of Manitoba (later known as the Manitoba Naturalists Society), "for the popular and scientific study of nature" '
Next, link to Yellow Evening Primrose (PDF), and Stinging Nettle (PDF), where you will find information (especially botanical diagnostic pictures) of the plants in question that are not yet covered, nor could they be easily covered as well, by their corresponding articles on Wikipedia.
Finally, please take a look at Wikipedia's What should be linked and read item 3., which states:
3. "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."
I feel that, clearly, the information user Tommyallen789 added would not fall under the rubric of advertising, and were good faith additions of legitimate information to the encyclopedia. The diagnostic pictures they provide are of a excellent quality. And until such information can be added and incorporated into these two articles, the links have a place on their respective pages.
In addition, use in Wikipedia's botanical articles of the sort of PDF's in question are common practice, though more often under the heading of references. They would therefore be appropriate in that context as well.
I see your points: Tommy's behavior is in error. It is unfortunate, because the two PDFs are actually very good. I wasn't saying a dot org is exempt, just that the organization wasn't in existence to profit financially (unless they are fronting and actually not de facto a nfp, but I would assume they are what they say they are, just that one member of their staff is a bit pushy). I will understand if you decide you want to re-revert my reversion of your reverts (inhale) so as not to reward Mr. Allen's bad behavior. But I will leave that up to you. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added those links back to the plant articles, because they really are extraordinary resources for people interested in learning more about those specific plants. They are head and shoulders above 99% of plant article external links, and are a real service to the Wikipedia reader, who we should be putting first. I put a note on User:Tommyallen789's talk page, pointing out that he has a conflict of interest, and should not add any more links, but should follow policy and propose it on the talk page (or to myself, if he would like). We certainly don't want to encourage spam, but we do want to add resources that help our readers as much as those linked articles do. I rarely add such links to articles, as my standards are typically too high, but these are a legitimate resource. First Light (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Declined Wikipedia is still not a place to to promote this site.--Hu12 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Done--Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hu12/Archive7! A biography which you have either created, contributed to, or edited, is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
--//microcell 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me--Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Camerapedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
