Jump to content

User talk:Hu12/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit]

Re External links added by User Pandionaus. The user has been advised about external links on 20 April 2010 on his talk page. I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asside from spam, user clearly has a conflict of interest "The primary aim of my website... "[1], and appears to be added for promotional purposes and sell his bird images (birdway.com.au/printpurchases.htm).
Accounts
Pandionaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Wikipedia is not a vehicle to sell images. I've removed them.--Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Spam in the Signpost

[edit]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spam for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I would be grateful for your opinion on this set of contributions. The user was advised about EL on 3 July 2011. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a report here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#American_Bird_Conservancy_COI_spam
Seems there is a long term pattern, and previous blocks related to this organization. as for the newest account (Amyatabc), Ive blocked per:
--Hu12 (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12: I noted your deletion of the American Bird Conservancy external link from the Environmental impact of wind power article and left a comment for you on its discussion page. As mentioned there, I see no WP:COI in an ornithologist providing a link to a policy page related to avoiding bird strikes by wind turbines. The website itself is an official site for a non-profit group which deals with environmental matters related to birds. This is not spam or opinion pushing, and even a series of links in related bird articles wouldn't constitute a disruption to our project, IMHO. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
replied--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBL removal

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is vbs.tv. Thank you. —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Allan Coe and Johnny Rebel edits by various IPs

[edit]

I'm hoping you can possibly help with an issue I brought up at User talk:Calmer Waters#David Allan Coe and Johnny Rebel. An anonymous editor I believe is intentionally trying to get the official web site of David Allan Coe ([http ://www.officialdavidallancoe.com http ://www.officialdavidallancoe.com]) blacklisted in order to substitute a fan site [http ://www.davidallencoe.com http ://www.davidallencoe.com]. See this edit. You had warned this IP User_talk:72.171.0.139#Additions of http:.//.officialdavidallancoe.com for the adding the link when above the editor is removing the link. Frankly I'm not sure the editor is quite balanced as the strategy appears to be to add the official link to Johnny Rebel to get it blacklisted while removing it from David Allan Coe and substituting the fan site. Thanks, GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Library Sound Archive revert

[edit]

Hi, today you reverted links to British Library audio recordings from sound archives of Plath, Browning, Rossetti and others. I was curious as to your motive. They are not "advertising or inappropriate external links" and seem strong and valuable to add, I think the product of the on-going GLAM/British Library collaboration which is working to offer more WP links to archive. A group is regularly meeting with the Library to open up public access. I understand that Kadams Adams' adding so many may have set alarm bells going, but I think that closer investigation of the links themselves would show their worth. Thanks Span (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedas spam filter caught Special:Contributions/Kadams87 mass spamming the project, I reverted per Wikipedia:SPAM#External_link_spamming and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. It doesn't matter if they might "show their worth" (etc.) it doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. see WP:NOT and WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Go ahead and add that one back to Robert Browning. thanks;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what 'spam' is in this context, given that Wikipedia has set up a project with the British Library to be able to link their sound files to our articles. Your sense of 'Spam' here seems to mean adding by rote or adding to too many articles, rather than any reflection on content. WP:SPAM says spam is "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website". I don't believe this is the case in this situation. Unusually, I believe that in this case all the links connect to rare sound archive material that is not available elsewhere. The British Library has one of the world's most extensive literary, publicly funded collections of historical document. Span (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2011 (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.. This is the essense of spamming. Wikipedia is Not a repository of Links. WP:NOT is a community agreed upon standard that all wikipedian should follow, particularly WP:SPA accounts demonstrate eggregiously, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the British Library in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption (Persistent spamming)--Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CRARG

[edit]

Thanks for taking care of this [http: //www.crarg.org/ one linkspam] reinserted by socks in so many articles at once. I was wondering if the blacklisting of the actual link would be equally appropriate, but you probably know better how to deal with this sort of thing. — LMK3 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WikiProject Spam report, continued multiple account spamming, despite warnings; So Per;
This site has been blocked--Hu12 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

d-addicts.com

[edit]

Hi Hu12. My actual intention is to request Wikipedia to remove all existing d-addicts.com links from its pages and include d-addicts.com in the Wikipedia spam blacklist. I just realized I might have made an error. I was supposed to state my request within the "Proposed additions" section instead of the "Proposed removals" section at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, am I right? --Jofien (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12. I've verified using my own sandbox that d-addicts.com was already blacklisted. I've deleted my request on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist page to avoid any further misunderstanding. Please delete you reply as well. Very sorry for any inconvenience caused. As I've mentioned, d-addicts.com is involved in copyright infringement of many Asian dramas. May I know whether the Wikipedia server can be configured to delete or block all the existing, old d-addicts.com links indicated on this page? --Jofien (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is black listed @ meta. Ive readded your request and closed it for the "record". no worries. All current links that reside on the server will not effect editing or saving a page, however it does block the addition of new links, or the re-addition of of links that get removed. thanks for your time in this matter....--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia is still "contributing" to copyright infringement. For example, this Wiki page links to the d-addicts page (wiki.d-addicts.com/Atsu_Hime) which in turn links to the forum (www.d-addicts.com/forum) that encourages the illegal download of many dramas. Since d-addicts is already blacklisted, can all the current links found through this search be deleted manually by anyone, if not automatically by the Bots? Thanks. --Jofien (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12. I'm still waiting for your advice. I would like Wikipedia to dissociate itself totally from the domain d-addicts.com. May I repeat: Since d-addicts is already blacklisted, can all the current links found through this search be deleted manually by anyone, if not automatically by the Bots? Thanks. --Jofien (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UGRB

[edit]

Here's another one of those. Please take a look at a linkspam involving speedily deteted Ukrainian Genealogical Research Bureau and the repeated addition of external link to that (clearly commercial) website by a non-autoconfirmed account: Markig1 (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance. —LMK3 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made a report here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Ukrainian_Genealogical_Research_Bureau. Looks as if there was some cross language spamming also. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The No Spam Barnstar
Thank you so much for reverting all that nonsense from Tony4b! Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debatepedia

[edit]

It seems like in 2007 there were questions about the quality of the Debatepedia website, that you were involved in. Here is a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#wiki.idebate.org

I think the spam filter should be removed from it.

This is what the website says about itself:

Debatepedia is the Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues. A project of the 501c3 non-profit International Debate Education Association (IDEA), Debatepedia utilizes the same wiki technology powering Wikipedia to centralize arguments and quotes found in editorials, op-eds, political statements, and books into comprehensive pro/con articles. This helps citizens and decision-makers better deliberate on the world's most important questions. Debatepedia is endorsed by the National Forensic League.

This is my explanation of why I like the website:

This link uses the wikipedia model to allow others to list pros and cons of different ideas. Any web-page has a bias. However in the encyclopedia world we are supposed to link to unbiased sources of information. I believe the best way to do this is to link to news articles and websites that try to be unbiased. The above link specifically tries to put reasons to agree and disagree on the same page in separate columns. If you believe in Wikipedia, if you believe in the power of crowds, if you believe in seeing both sides of an issue, I believe the above external link will allow internet viewers see gain access to more information.

I would love to hear what you think. myclob (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, asside from the past abuse, this site is a wiki. Being so, would make it a Link normally to be avoided and would fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. I don't think the site meets any of our inclusion guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Hu12, please refer to the "d-addicts.com" section earlier. --Jofien (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 other admins have already deleted the links. --Jofien (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External inks an agents website

[edit]

User:Catrina Caldwell (apparently a new user) has edited two pages so far and on both she added an external link to an agents website. Someone with the same name is mentioned on the website at this page. Thus it seems likely to me that the new user might have a COI and I think that it would be worth making enquiries. Snowman (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovebirds forum website

[edit]

See one example here of a series of edits adding external links to a forum. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if the account GideonSA, is an administrator (Gideon) othe forum. --Hu12 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steinathkw

[edit]

Hey Hu12, I remember you from my RfA many years ago! Would you consider an unblock of this account? While their behavior needs ongoing scrutiny, they have not yet made any spammy edits since their request to change their user name was approved. Though they are busy adding external links to articles, the material is often useful, and is one of the rare sources of information for some really obscure articles. My impression is they are a government-supported organization in Germany. They are still editing the German Wikipedia as de:User:Haus der Kulturen der Welt. (Now I see that you've left a comment there). Shouldn't Steinathkw at least be given a chance to see if they will follow our policies, after the change of name? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend. Asside from a spam link adding account (over multiple wiki's) my concern was raised as she went back to using Special:Contributions/Haus_der_Kulturen_der_Welt after the name change on the 1st. Both accounts, based on their edit history, exist for the sole or primary purpose of adding links in apparent violation of both Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. know that Steinathkw (talk · contribs) is Eva Stein (Stein at hkw), the internet Public Relations and Communications editor at Haus der Kulturen der Welt [2]. If you would like to unblock the Steinathkw account in hopes her behavior changes, I'll have no objection of you doing so. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration

[edit]

We find that our links for the website www.galatta.com placed in Reference/Links section in any articles are removed as we were involved in adding links with Adsense to Wikipedia in the year 2008. You can find the details from Adsense related marketing Spamming We weren't aware of SPAM until we noticed the page referred above and understood the nature of abuse. We had been waiting for almost 3 years to resolve this and ensure that we come out of it. We are interested in getting back to Wikipedia with our quality contributions. I understand that we messed up so bad but please give us a chance to get back and prove ourselves. The pages does impact a lot on our business. Hope you would reconsider our request. Dotcominfoway (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly both the nature and extent of the abuse is beyond excessive. Clearly your intent upon return is to continue the promotion of your links which, if allowed, would be in apparent violation of Wikipedias Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Additionaly;
We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners'/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. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your sites. Thank you for your understanding.--Hu12 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RCPI Heritage Centre edits

[edit]

I think your reversal of the above edits as spam/CoI is a tad harsh. I've been keeping an eye on them (I've created or contributed to the affected articles) and IMO they are relatively harmless - after all it's only a heritage centre, not some profiteering enterprise. And while edits to College-related articles could be considered CoI, edits to physicians' bios could hardly be. I'd like to address this on the editor's talk page, but I'd like to hear your opinion on this first. Hohenloh + 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Rachelelizabethe (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC) User talk:Rachelelizabethe From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [edit]http://.ombudsman-services.org[reply]

Accounts Ombudsman Services (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Services Edit filter search · Google) Rachelelizabethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google) Rachel Chorley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Chorley Edit filter search · Google)

The page Ombudsman Services has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be blatant advertising which only promotes something, and which is unlikely to be suitable for an article (or at best would need a fundamental rewrite). Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, whether a company, product, group, service, person, religious or political belief, or anything else. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.--Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi I work for a not for profit company ombudsman services. The page is not intended to advertise, however we provide a free service that there is a statutory requirement for ombudsman in energy and comms and we are the organisation appopinted by government to do this. We give out free advice to people in dispute, for example problems with their gas and electricity bills , or vulnerable people who may of had their phone line disconnected or have no heating etc.

Your edits are in apparent violation of Wikipedias Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Additionaly;
Accounts
Ombudsman Services (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Rachelelizabethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Rachel Chorley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)(16:20, 23 November 2011 Ombudsman Services (talk | contribs | block) created new account User:Rachel Chorley ‎ (new account) )
It is quite evident that your creation of multiple accounts are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Ombudsman Service Limited . Please do not create articles or continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address and accounts being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote Ombudsman Service Limited right? --Hu12 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boleon and KernSafe advertisements

[edit]

Sorry to bother you but I thought you should know that Boleon has been hitting the iSCSI page again, this time making unexplained reverts of explained changes. After examining his recent changes, I asked him nicely (on his Talk page) to stop; only time will tell if that will work. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an Spam / advertising-only account and considering the recent vandalism the next step will be a block, per;
See WikiProject Spam report. Thanks for catching this. cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StarWind Software page

[edit]

Hu12,

see, I can just tell the same I've told to Vrenator - the whole idea to keep StarWind Software page is to provide backlinks FROM wikipedia, from already existing referenced to StarWind software products. Keeping article itself makes absolutely no good as a spam source as it's useful only to people who are already familiar with the company. Vrenator did remove "advertisment" tag and we're working on providing links from external sources. Please allow us keep the page. And don't call spammers - we're not :(

Thank you!

AK47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.8.10 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly spam;
Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Any further spamming may result in your site, account and/or your IP address and accounts being blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, page is completely re-written. Now it has only references to external sources (including hardcopy ones) and some basic information about the company and it's HQs location. Could you please check our page again to say is it OK or not. And BTW, why our content is a SPAM and DataCore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataCore_Software) is not? Thank you for your help! 213.238.8.10 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've noted your comments on the Starwind Software AfD page and as you seem to have an aversion to people exploiting Wikipedia for promotion and advertising I was wondering if you could take a look at Microsoft SQL Server Compare Tools. This article is nothing but a list of external links for people trying to promote their products. If these links were put on most articles they would be immediately reverted as spam. I have suggested changing the links to references and removing anything with no reference at all. I've put in a request for comment but the only response I've had is from an IP user who has a link for his product on it. There are a lot of these articles, I've started cleaning up Comparison of database tools which I think looks better. I would really appreciate any comments you may have on this - I'm so tempted to AfD it. Vrenator talk 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vrenator. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. This seems to be the case with Microsoft SQL Server Compare Tools, which is a WP:SPAMHOLE and seriously conflicts with WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is simply not a place for indiscriminate list or WP:LINKFARMS. Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" means articles that consist of a list of links to "Notable" articles. Lists are Wikipedia articles; so are subject to Wikipedia's content policies. It doesnt have enough "notable article links" to warrent a stand alone list..probably needs to be deleted or redirected to Microsoft SQL Server. The Comparison of database tools, however, appears to have enough notable articles to be a list, however all the non-article entries should be removed as they add nothing to this encyclopedia. thats my thoughts..--Hu12 (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think I will nominate it for deletion as I can't really see that there would be much left if the spam is removed. Nothing is sourced properly . At least it will provoke a discussion.Vrenator talk 13:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest to make this page a "proxy" - list of short references to the products and / or companies already listed in Wiki. It really helps to have software titles to be put face-to-face in one place. Just my $0.02 :) APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Now redirects to Microsoft SQL Server --GraemeL (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeL, its not stalking when your always welcome on any of my pages at any time. ;) Love the fact theres actualy a {{TPS}} template. Cheers --Hu12 (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The No Spam Barnstar
It's better to be overdressed than underdressed. Thank you for kiling spam. Even if you go sometimes too far... APS (Full Auto) (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other remedies

[edit]

When an article you think is just a lot of foolish puffery survives AfD over your own !vote to delete, one option is to fix the article. They wanted an article, okay, they got it. Make it brutally verifiable. Cite the heck out of each and every edit, eliminate the puffery and reduce the article to the verifiable facts. You'll be helping make a better encyclopedia and, if you're like me, you may also get another kind of satisfaction. C.f., [3] and [4] and the discussion on the article talk page. Msnicki (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay...

[edit]

Sorry to take so long to respond to your message; I've been away. My wife required unplanned spinal surgery last week and my hands have been full. Much as I love working on WP, she is a higher interrupt priority. I've got to get some sleep now but will try my best to answer tomorrow. Take care--and Happy Christmas! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 05:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. Prayers to both of you for a fast recovery! May your Solsitce, Festivus and Christmas be full with loved ones and blessed with fond memories. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your anti-spam work, but...

[edit]

I don't think it's a good idea to reproduce the URL of a spamlink in your messages to the spammers; I suspect it might somehow pump up their search engine results, and besides it's unwarranted recognition. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its for tracking. I always add a . after the "http://", so the links are null and will always 404..;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that; but I just feel like we ought to keep the text string of any spamlink out of the project as much as possible, except on pages devoted specifically to spammer-catching where it will appear to their shame. YMMV, of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its for tracking. Cant tell you how many various sock's and IP's have, and are being tracked because of multiple editors tagging spammers talk pages. Its been a simple but invaluable tracking method for project spam and has been effective, at least for me, the last 5 years. however, I do see your point Orangemike. --Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

[edit]

Hi Hu12,

You are receiving this message because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout without specifying a preference between a full blackout or soft blackout. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI.   — C M B J   00:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

 Done, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hi Hu12, I added an external link to a site that you removed (note: I am affiliated with the site). I believe it is of real value to RLS patients and does not try to sell anything, just a patient participation survey to increase the overall knowledge of RLS and other conditions. Patients can answer questions about RLS, discuss the questions, and even create new questions of their own to explore the topic. I think this link should be added to the External Links section: *[https ://www.traitwise.com/?tags=rls Restless Legs Syndrome on Traitwise.com]. I would like your thoughts. Thank you. Mrs102561 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

parrotfacts.net

[edit]

One or more IP users appear to be keen to add external links to http: //parrotfacts.net. See these edits 1 and 2 as examples. What do you think about this? Snowman (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an individual adding multiple related (adsense)domains.--Hu12 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


article about Rosa Barba

[edit]

Hi Hu12, I am new to wikipedia, and I admit that I don't quite figured out how it works with the editing of articles. Since I definately know that wikipedia loves to have more people involved to edit, I tried to edit an article about the german artist Rosa Barba, who I know very good. Yesterday I did this without havin an account, like with IP-adresses, but today I found that it was reverted, and it looks that it was reverted by you. Could you tell me what's wrong with this article, like did you find any false information there, or what was the reason you reverted it? I think all information in my article is right. I started an account now "midnighthours" and put it again back to what I wrote, and I would be very happy to get some information or response from you. thank you, greetings from midnighthours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnighthours (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you need to look at WP:COI. Second article is Unsourced (WP:BLP), and reads like an essay (WP:NOTESSAY) and appears more promotional in nature than encyclopedic. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a directory of her work. Fact is I seriously doubt she is notable enough to pass the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. Lots of problems with the article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well, if you think that what's now there is better, I just quote this: "Rosa Barba works in a viriety in a variety of media and formats...". And if you think she is not notable enough for a more comprehensive article, then I think you have just not much insights about her work and it's meaning in contemporary visual art, especially in europe. Looks like my humble start in wikipedia is already coming to an end here, since it feels that wikipedia doesn't really welcomes and supports newcomers after all. So, bye bye wikipedia. At least: thanx for a response. MidnightHours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnighthours (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

[edit]

Dear Hu12,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not refspam in this case

[edit]

Hi. I know why you made this change. However, in this case, ref is not refspam, because it is to a legitimate record of an event that is memorialized there. In this case, the site acts as a third-party independent reference for this fact. I'll revert. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you want to investigate a big spammer and probably a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, see User:Tixienixie. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that the link is a press release, hosted on brilliantlectures.org, sponsored by "THE BRILLIANT LECTURE SERIES" and added into the article by BrilliantLectureSeries (talk · contribs)... I'd say it is aything but an independant third-party source...in addition to failing as a WP:RS. Sorry. I'll look into User:Tixienixie --Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted per WP:RS Please be aware of WP:BLP. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please block a spammer

[edit]

Hello. For a long time I'm monitoring a specific spammer through Filter 441. The three users reported here are his latest socks. These are not false positives, I assure you. Can you block them. Sole Soul (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reports;
Lots in that filter... created this on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board --Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have noticed a few edits adding external links to surajyam.org; see this edit. I do not know how widespread these additions are. It looks like someone with a similar username had edited this page on the external website. Snowman (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blocked the account, its an "Advert" only..--Hu12 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Fed Up, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfin reef squid

[edit]

If the issue was simply the url pointing to a website you consider non-reliable, you would have noticed immediately that the link was pointing to the wrong article. Instead of removing entire swathes of text based on that, please find the source in the future. The information was important and can easily be attested elsewhere if you just looked. I have corrected the link.

That said what exactly is non WP:RS with the link anyway?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. You removed [http ://www.ihavenet.com/Environment-Overfishing-Pollution-Could-Change-Seafood-Diets.html this source] and [http ://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/science-in-pics-breeding-bigfin-reef-squid-59504.html this source]. The former is an interview of several scientists, the latter is by a nature photographer. Both of their content can be verified by academic papers also used in Bigfin reef squid. So why exactly again are they unreliable? Because they're not the New York Times or something? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ihavenet.com Scraper site Article is from the New Scientist and improperly attributed and possibly publishing content in violation of Copyrights. Proper attribution should contain; (New Scientist | March 7, 2009 | Williams, Caroline | Copyright 2002 New Scientist). However, it does appears the New Scientist article is behind a paywall. Anyway, its a part of a large scale spam campaign, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Jan_1#Adsense_0659522543150107_Related. its nothing more than a news aggrigator site, which perhaps in this case it would be preferable to link to a reliable, properly attributed article over a paywall. Although plenty of other, properly attributed(reliability) copies exist.--Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means correct it, don't remove it. I have nothing against removing scraper/spam sites, but please do not remove perfectly good information when doing so. It's harder to rebuild the lost information than it is to find a source. Even a {{Citation needed}} is preferable. I have corrected the attribution. Thanks.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the citation. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I prefer first names first (convention used in other sources in the same article) and the |author= field rather than unwieldy |first= |last= params.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Hu12! I've been responding to the Feedback Dashboard comments from new users that past few days. This morning a comment was placed by Laureanoralon expressing disappointment over her links being removed and given a spam warning. I checked some of the edits ([5], [6], [7]..) and they seem to be valid to me per WP:ELYES. This is not a complaint, it's more for my own learning (and to help this user), but wouldn't the interview pages be appropriate as external links to those articles? I notice WP:ELYES specifically mentions interview transcripts as appropriate. Thanks for any insight you can give me! Wikipelli Talk 12:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Yunshui has given me a big part of the answer here. . I didn't catch the COI angle. Still, I think there's a case to be made for including. Hopefully Laureanoralon will read and take Yunshui's advice. Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 12:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this users conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia under Laureanoralon and IP 201.219.84.73, in order to promote Articles written by Laureano Ralon which is in clear violation of our SPAM Guideline. The External Links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states explicitly; "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." and is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Additionaly Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising and by spamming their own article violates one Wikipedia's main pillars, which is neutrality (NPOV). Lastly, since this user has no other contributions other than spamming links to their own articles for two days straight, the policy Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption could also be applied here;
There's a multitude of issues involved in this case. Thanks for dropping me a note--Hu12 (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! I appreciate it!  :) Wikipelli Talk 13:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Bulgaria

[edit]

Hello, please take a look at my objection against the blacklisting of "Images from Bulgaria". →Spiritia 20:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied--Hu12 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Levinson

[edit]

Hu, I have reverted (again) your deletion of the interview with Paul Levinson. It strikes me as a legitimate interview explicating his ideas and life - perfect for a BLP. If you disagree, may I suggest that you and I discuss on the Levinson talk page. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarstone

[edit]

Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MooMinder and BurrenSteel

[edit]

I am surprised to see that your verdict on MooMinder and BurrenSteel as spam-sites is stale.([8]) The article is semi-protected to prevent further spamming, so I plein don't understand your decision. Can you explain that? Night of the Big Wind talk 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Night of the Big Wind. It Appears page protection prevented further incidents on the article Tubber, Ireland and there have been no other additions of these urls elsewhere on the project the past 5 months. Would appear this case has become stale and further administrative actions such as blacklisting, would be unnecessary.--Hu12 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, clear. Thanks for the explanation. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting it. If future incidents occur, please let me know and we'll have another look at it. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam talk deletion

[edit]

A discussion about a spam/unreliable source was completely deleted by an involved editor [9]. Can it be restored by another editor like me, or does it require bureaucrat/admin work? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask the same question. Shouldn't it be archived so that it can be found using the search tool?--Dodo bird (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation?

[edit]

you had voiced concern

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#adding_links_to_philipkdickfans_site and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.philipkdickfans.com

with the appearance of

is there sufficient cause to open a sockpuppet investigation? -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and its been confirmed they are the same. Also See WikiProject Spam report--Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A respected user here,

[edit]

Hello,

I see my name here[10], Its wrong because I used Jamejam newspaper link (jamejamonline.ir), as a source in a Wikinews article probably. so please correct it, plus I have at least more that 1000 edits in just on wiki(fa.wikipedia.org) without a single mistake, AND I am a roll backer and reviewer in fa.wikinews.org, please correct this mistake if you can solve it, Thank you in advance, Regards KhabarNegar (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be concerned about. When you made this edit, it logged that action. --Hu12 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, so its wrong, because this edit, is a normal news and that links are sources of that news and both are well-known famous newspaper link(which I am not their employee!), so this bot is doing wrong by considering that link as Spam. I have made lots of news in Wikinews and that edit is just one of them, by considering all above please do me a favor, Please remove my name from that list, (because that's wrong), or may you please help me to correct this bot so not to recognize normal users as spammers again.KhabarNegar (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All edits are logged on Wikipedia (ie [11]), this one happens to be logging additions of the jamejamonline.ir URL and logging the ("Diff's"). Anywhere jamejamonline.ir is inserted it loggs the "diff" of that action. I'll strike your name, however its realy no big deal.--Hu12 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 205.152.158.201

[edit]

Hi. Concerning your recent block of 205.152.158.201, I do not think adding links from Gene Wiki articles to the [http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ United States National Center for Biotechnology Information GeneReviews] is spam. These are highly relevant and authoritative links that associate mutations in human genes with diseases. I do wish the editor would create an account and be more interactive. For example, it might be a better idea to include these links in the {{GNF_Protein_box}} templates and I would like to start a discussion with this editor on this proposal. But I do note that the editor did respond to my request to add links after the references section. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note this discussion and particularly the comments of the Wikipedia Administrator TimVickers. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Boghog. 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. Adding over 1,300 links to the same site, is WP:LINKSPAM. The discusion took place in 2010, and it appears there has no attempt by this IP to discuss or coordinate with any wiki-project to integrate these links into a legitimate template or some other collaborative effort. This is has continued for the last 3+ years, in clear violation of WP:NOTLINKFARM. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam warnings

[edit]

You may want to revisit some of your "spam" warnings (the set you posted on User Talk:Monish.tolaney and others). User:Jaideep.pant and the IP were adding links to the parent companies of some sites--that's wrong, per WP:ELOFFICIAL, but not spam. Monish.tolaney was spamming, because he was adding links to a site that sells magazines. MikeDogma appears to be a complete mistake, because that editor hasn't edited since being blocked in 2009. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I see that you have been reverting links to theodorerooseveltcenter.org placed by Krystal M Thomas. I wonder what you think is wrong with the links? They seem to me to be relevant links to a useful resource. I have no doubt that you are right in seeing Krystal M Thomas as being involved, so that there is the potential for a conflict of interest, but that is not in itself a reason for removing the links. If there is some other reason that I haven't seen, I would be grateful if you could let me know what it is, and I have no doubt it would also help Krystal M Thomas to know what the problem with her editing is, so that she can avoid making the same mistake again. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (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 individual adding the links. The most prominent problem is that Krystal M Thomas (talk · contribs) is the "Digital Library Coordinator" for the website theodorerooseveltcenter.org. Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked., which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines and a direct violation of Neutral point of view, one of The five pillars of Wikipedia. Clearly adding a bunch of external links to an articles for the purpose of promoting a website is not allowed, and is considered Link spamming. Here are some relevant guidelines and policies:
Hopefully these are helpful. Thanks James.--Hu12 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification. I accept your point. However, saying that the editor in question should not have put the links there is not the same as saying that they should be removed, just as conflict of interest of an author is not adequate reason for deletion of an article. It is up to us to make an intelligent assessment of whether the links are suitable, and remove them only if they aren't, no matter who put them there (except in the case of edits by a banned user, which is the one case where policy says we can revert no matter what the merits of the edits). JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wholey agree. A reasonable assessment, in this case, shows that repeated mass additions to the same URL landing page over multiple articles is not a suitable contribution and as a result, were removed because they were not added in order to verifying article content. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting in India

[edit]

Hey Hu12,

The wiki article on Indian Podcasts is highly out of date. In fact most of the links don't resolve any more.

I had added a new podcast (the one I run) to the page and wanted to clean up the page in later edits. I obviously did something wrong. Let me know what I did wrong there. But the one I added is a genuine Indian Podcast.

Other things I think need to change in the article: - A line about Indicast states that it is the "most consistent and widespread" podcast network. While it is probably true, it is superlative with no proper metric to back it. - There are many more podcasts that are active today in India that have no mention on the page - New trends like comedy podcasts have also taken seed in India which should be mentioned in the article because it makes it seem like we only podcast about sports, politics and languages

Since I work on an Indian Podcast, I have context and perspective on the article and I would like us Indian podcasters to be represented better :)

Let me know what you thought was wrong with the first edit and I'll correct that in future edits. thanks.

Rohjose (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent.... Additionally, your site is a podcast which is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Query

[edit]

Hello Hu12, I see that you have removed much of the content from this article: James Robison (author). I am relatively new to this and appreciate any advice. Can you please help me understand how those sections I added to the article which were removed need editing? I thought they were reliable and useful sources. (BTW, I created the article without input from the author himself, he is an author whose work I greatly admire, but who lacked a Wiki article, which I saw as a travesty given his accomplishments. He just won another Pushcart Prize this year, which is a big deal in Literary circles.) I tried to base my formatting and sourcing as much as possible on articles which were either "Featured" like J. K. Rowling, or "Good articles" like Clara Ng and Julia Alvarez. Those articles have bibliographical sections linking to outside sources in the same way as the Robison article. Is there another way to include these removed sections? Perhaps by placing outside links in the References sections? Many thanks, --Kfitz00 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included a comment in the edit summary, explaining the edit. While your intentions are clearly well meaning, your running into the problem of WP:LINKFARM. Most defiantly mention the awards and the existing section looks good, however try using Inline citations to verify.--Hu12 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Sites

[edit]

Hi Hu12, I just wanted a slight clarification on adding links. I added a few links for certain music artists mixtapes, these were linked to the corresponding mixtape where the reader could listen or download that specific free mixtape. This link didnt currently exist on wikipedia. You removed these links that i put up as you said they were spamming but i disagree as the links are directly specific to the mixtape(s) that was listed on wikipedia.

So just so i'm sure if an artist has a free mixtape available that has been listed on wikipedia, and there are no links from wikipedia to that mixtape, are you not allowed to provide that link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consept1 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this has been explained to you before.
Accounts
Consept1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
86.178.146.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.180.190.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.182.174.174 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.177.102.194 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.176.42.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.176.93.143 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Wikipedia is Not a repository of Links. Based on your edit history, you appear to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the Download A Mixtape in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption (Persistent spamming). Additionally, your site is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Adobe Flex charts editing

[edit]

Why spam?? People might be curios why certain frameworks are not included, and I gave the explanations in those sections you removed. Also the prices... if the article compares some products and gives the prices - the most logical question reader might have is "are those prices are still actual?" Thebit.hao (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such promotional content, pricing and advertisements do not belong here. see WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOPRICES --Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist

[edit]

Hello :) I noticed that you're primarily involved at the Spam whitelist noticeboard, could you please review my request for aceshowbiz.com to be unblocked? Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of that URL for you. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much :D. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Logan

[edit]

Hi. Can you explain, please, why you are deleting what appears to be a perfectly reasonable external link from this article, without explanation in an edit summary? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should help explain Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate your taking the time. Please consider my reversion of your removal as a de facto posting of the link by myself. Since I have no connection with Figure/Ground, which I had never heard of before, there's no COI problem, and the interview the link leads to is otherwise compliant with WP:EL. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed --Hu12 (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi HU12: a quick note to advise that the Iris Chang Papers external link deleted was not a duplicate of the link above it, although they were identically worded. The two collections were entirely different, one by Chang in 1995 and the other posthumously, 2004-2011. The external link has been reinstated and clarifications have been made to the two collections listed. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Harry. cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raid of the Rainbow Lounge

[edit]

Could you please explain why you keep removing the information regarding "Raid of the Rainbow Lounge" (the documentary) from the Rainbow Lounge Raid page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Lounge_raid? --Brian (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you added it 2 weeks before its actual March 15 premiere. It was added prior to that by an account clearly created to promote the video. Wikipedia is not an vehicle for promoting video's. Scheduled or expected events should only be included if the event is notable and has already taken place. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be "Raid of the Rainbow Lounge" related only... You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just promote this video, right? --Hu12 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different IPs reverting your edits on loft conversions

[edit]

Hi, just spotted that an non registered IP has reverted your edits on the loft conversion page and put back the links to convertlofts.com and starlightlofts.com have returned and this very obviously a commercial website and the links offer no value. I would propose that the offending website is considered for blacklisting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.58.0 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 May 2012

Your edits have been reverted again. This time by a named user but I suspect it is the same person that has been spamming converlofts.com. There are no comments on the edit or reason given for undoing your edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.254.90 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 15 May 2012

I believe the links to convertlofts.com add much value to the wikipedia page expanding on areas, dormer and mansard conversions as well other areas of loft conversions. Having read the website it is aparent that it is not a commercial site but more so a site to prodive resource on all aspects of loft conversions - this emphisied on the about us page of the site. 87.84.104.51 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts
Based on your edit history, you appear to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the ConvertLofts.com in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption (Persistent spamming). Additionally, "ConvertLofts.com' 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 NOT a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote ConvertLofts.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best China Travel spam on Wikipedia

[edit]

I hate to use the back channels, but this one cannot wait the usual X months for blacklisting: See WikiProject Spam report and [12] (Ctrl+F for 14.214. and 27.36., link might go stale in a couple of days time). Thanks in advance. MER-C 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all done--Hu12 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this. MER-C 10:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Capital

[edit]

Hi, yesterday you made this edit at the Caesarstone article, removing a reference to Renaissance Capital that was there for verification purposes regarding information relating to Caesarstone's March IPO on the Nasdaq. Renaissance is often cited by the Naz's own online news reports, as well as by Reuters and other prominent outlets. The edit summary said "WP:RS adsense spam," but I'm uncertain as to what that means and how the reference qualifies as spam when it's there for the purpose of WP:V. I'll thank you to take a few moments to share the reasoning behind that edit with me, especially as my tendency is to revert it as a misidentification as spam of something that's intended as an innocent citation.—Biosketch (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I see you've nominated Renaissance Capital (US company) for deletion. It could be the article itself in its current form is bogus for reasons of COI and promotion, but I have to disagree strongly that Renaissance fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:CORP. If that's the motivation underlying the removal of all the Renaissance links and classifying them as spam, then it would have been wiser to address the issue at a venue where community input could be encouraged and consensus reached before removing all the links – unless that was already tried and consensus was established. I'll continue this at the AfD page, but at least specifically regarding Caesarstone I ask that you reconsider the link's removal in light of my comment above.—Biosketch (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renaissance Capital is a non notable investing company whom was cought mass Refrerence spamming from IP's registered with Renaissance Capital Corp. I've reworded the section in the Caesarstone article and added a real news source. --Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The No Spam Barnstar
Just a reminder that people really do appreciate the many hours of work you spend spam fighting. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much!--Hu12 (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in de:WP: songlexikon.de

[edit]

Your edits last night in de-WP weren't useful at all and caused a bunch of reverts. songlexikon.de is an official project of the University of Freiburg and most of the links pass our standards for weblinks. Next time it would be helpful to start a request on admin requests before doing such crosswiki actions. Thanks, Siech•Fred Home 06:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It doesn't matter--being University of Freiburg related, it doesn't confer a license to Mass cross-Project spam even when it's true. see (de:Silberundgold, en:Silberundgold, fr:Silberundgold). Often Wikipedia is spammed by these institutions in attempts to both legitimize "official projects" and increase their 'project' exposure in hopes for more/new funding and donations to the institution. Unfortunately, a closer look reveals its nothing more that an low value, Wikipedia knock-off "Song Encyclopedia" which does not provide a unique resource. --Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer surprises me. Classification as spam in en or fr necessarily doesn't mean, that it is spam in de too. The ressource meets the criterias for weblinks in de-WP and the allegation of being just another wiki clone seems outrageous to me. If you could read and understand the german text provided by the links you will see, that the articles in "Encyclopaedia of Songs" are of a musicological kind. And furthermore we've discussed the links in de-WP and found a consensus together with user:Silberundgold days before your did your reverts. I've seen that you're an active spam fighter, that's very important, indeed. But all that I beg you for is that you should be more careful in reverting link spam in other than your home wiki and ask before you act. We have a very active vandal fighting unit in de, there is no need for cross wiki actions without any comment. Thanks, Siech•Fred Home 06:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia has its own content. Are you god?

[edit]

I work hours writing content on wikipedia, i leave a link, you delete link? why don't you delete my writing too. does this link is harmfull to user? Or give user a better experience. cnlikebo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.220.2.146 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Your hours of contributions consist entirely of exploiting Wikipedia promoting your site (chinesezodiac.org Registrant Name:Li Kebo) and identify yourself as " likebo " and only exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting chinesezodiac.org in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines. In addition to your persistant , WP:REFSPAMming, you have used edit summaries for personal attacks, and harassment, which are never signs of good faith. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China–North Korea relations

[edit]

Hello Hu12. I have a question on your edit in People's Republic of China–North Korea relations: May I ask you why this sentence has been reverted? I didn't contribute the contents, but just curious since it looks relevant. (or maybe not?) Thanks, --- PBJT (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reverted because of WP:COI MASS Multi article Spamming by Special:Contributions/205.201.242.126 (IP close to IP of server of wilsoncenter.org). cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response, Hu12! I respect your decision, and was just curious since the sentence itself doesn't look like a problem. By the way, could this content be included in the article, maybe in the military aid section? I was also interested in that declassified diplomatic cable, and thought that those documents are worth mentioning somewhere in the Wikipedia. (maybe not in the PRC-NK relations.) Best, --- PBJT (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it will bennifit the article, then by all means re-include it in a neutral encyclopedic way. My reversion was about the behavior (WP:SPAM & WP:COI), not so much the content of the link. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Could you give a reason for removing this link? Please reply here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, This and this should help explain it. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment on the general case, but the particular link you removed is to a very valuable archive that, as far as I know, is not available elsewhere. Part of the objection seems to be that someone connected with the website is inserting the links. I have examined the contents reached by the link and can determine that the content is quite informative and useful with respect to history of the subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve Mariotti article

[edit]

Hello again! In my haste, I forgot the top-of-article templates, which you added. Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 20:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this one;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents

[edit]

Hi there HU, VASCO from Portugal here,

about this message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NFBDB), just to notify you that, two weeks later, User:NFBDB has resumed his insertion of the "bad" external link (only once, in Nélson Marcos, i have reverted him).

Could it be he was waiting for the tide to settle to resume or is it just a coincidence. Anyway, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting it, Vasco. He only added that one, so he may be testing the waters. thanks again--Hu12 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion sought

[edit]

Thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#heylookmeover.blogspot.com.au? In summary, a blog has been created that is more or less a mirror of stats that are only available behind Variety magazine's paywall. I notified the user adding them that it may not be appropriate (I was hoping to get some additional feedback from others first) but the user continues to add them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the box office earnings of a film is extremely appropriate - there is a set feature for it in Wikipedia's box entries. The source comes from Variety magazine which is extremely reputable. The transmission of records is accurate - I have compared it with lists in actual Variety magazine. It also corresponds with figures contained in such publications as Aubrey Solomon's book on Twentieth Century Fox and Reel facts : the movie book of records by Cobbett Steinberg. It would be great if Variety made this data available directly but they do not.Dutchy85 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several issues concern me with this. I've posted there--Hu12 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on Penis enlargement

[edit]

(Yeah, that title does sound a little weird...)

An IP editor (108.13.103.192‎ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)) has reverted some of my removal of unsourced medical information from the Penis enlargement article. He/she seems rather insistent on keeping the links to their commercial site in WP. Rather than get close to 3RR or an edit war with the person, I'm asking you for help, or at least a second opinion.

As always, if you think I've overstepped the bounds of policy with what I was doing, please let me know and I'll correct the problem immediately.

Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

haha... :) seems the IP stopped and I've watch-listed it. Certainly needed some cleaning up. Good work!--Hu12 (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping against hope they would settle down. I should've known better. Thanks for protecting that page; it should help lighten the workload a bit. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam SPI case

[edit]

Hello Hu12, you may want to see this SPI case involving a chronic spammer. Knowing that socking to spam is a criteria for blacklisting, I thought you might like to know. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Defiantly a long term problem. Sock spamming is never a sign of good faith. I've made a note on the case page and added them to the Blacklist. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

www.jutcm.com

[edit]
Hi User Hu12,Website www.jutcm.com is an official website for international students recruitment. Please contact Dean of International Exchange and cooperation of Jiangxi University of TCM , Ms Molly (刘院长) on 0086-791-7118636 by phone or jxliuyanhua@yahoo.com.cn by email for furthure clarification. User Anna is showing personal disrespect and arguments on my edits. We are anxiously waiting for removal of ban on www.jutcm.com. [[User:Education experts|Education experts]] (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Tracy -- Old Time Radio

[edit]

Hi, Why did you remove the link to Old Time Radio in the External Links of the Dick Tracy page? It's a working and appropriate link. Regards, Totoro33 (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WikiProject Spam report. It was added by a Sockpuppet spamming links to his/her adsense site. --Hu12 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block review of User:Pvladov

[edit]

Hello Hu, wanted to ask you about this editor, who you blocked for spamming. They've requested a username change and agreed to stop the linkspam. Any objections to a second chance here? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no objections. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping by to say hi

[edit]

Hey, Hu12! I am just stopping by to say 'hi' and to let you know that your user page looks great! I'm a 'newbie' (I guess you could say that) to the site so I am still trying to find my way. Wikipedia really is confusing when you are used to working on sites like WikiAnswers. Haha. Hope to talk with you soon! At32296 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New message!

[edit]

You have a new message here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#rashal.com --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting linkspam

[edit]

Hey, I noticed you've been reverting "linkspam" from a number of IPs. Why have you decided that the added links are spam? They appear to be interviews and articles from Manga Entertainment, which would be considered WP:RS. While the IPs mostly added them to the External links section, their presence might encourage a more regular editor to incorporate them into the main body of the article. Anyway, no judgment, just curious about your thought process. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axem. Its a result of mass, long term persistent spam abuse.--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If that's the case, would you mind if I restored specific instances that seem particularly useful/not spammy (e.g. [13])? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure,  Done--Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

[edit]
Hello, Hu12. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
replied, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello,

I'm wondering why you reverted the cdist entry from Comparison of open source configuration management software. The page is given a lot of work and is probably better written than others linked from the article.

Thus I was wondering for which reason you reverted it and what needs to be improved to have it stay in the comparision list.

NicoSchottelius (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam SPI

[edit]

Hello Hu12, Here is a SPI case where your review would be appreciated. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this is fairly extensive and long term beyond just that single domain. I've made a note on the SPI case to that effect, created a detailed spam report and have blocked the offending domains. Thanks :)--Hu12 (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited MacRuby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Just-in-time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it

[edit]

Please refer to this message (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hu12#My_two_cents). Keep it up, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apparently you did not miss it, i was just bothering you. Sorry. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:92.243.182.24

[edit]

Hey. Why did you revert the edits of 92.243.182.24 (talk · contribs) and block the IP for three months? The user only added links to the subjects' official websites and fixed those links that had gone dead. Prolog (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP tripped the spam filter 12 times yesterday, adding a new domain each edit. Contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links, roughly 120+ in total. The Russian anons IP's spamming occurred heaviest frequency during the last 2 1/2 months, thus the preventative block duration. Typically this type of mass domain spamming are usually from SEO farms (from china and russia), that spam wikipedia with fake or under construction pages such as andre-couto.com[14]. I'll adjusted the block as this is the only IP in range 92.243.182.24/32 that is active. However i believe there is a high likelihood of the spamming reoccurring based on the IP's history and frequency. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

[edit]

My apologies but i tried to fix/add content and make things better. In addition, you should check other external links, and see that there are some comercial sites, and i tried to add an open, community owned. Best regards CyberianIce (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to it being Non-English-language content, forums and sites requiring registration are a Links normally to be avoided. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Nathan Buzza

[edit]

Hello Hu12. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nathan Buzza, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is a credible assertion of importance; this is not in the league of 'my best friend bob' for which A7 is meant. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Help further ! Dr.pragmatist (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Doc ;)--Hu12 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB

[edit]

Dear Hu12,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions regarding the Q-Zar, Austco and Amcom Software. My user name is nbuzza.

May I respectfully request that you review these amendments. They are not intended to be advertorial in nature and I believe that I complied with Wikipedia guidelines and would gladly make any suggested changes.

In terms of conflicts of interest, please find following my fully disclosure;

1. I worked for Omnitronics (the firm that developed Q-Zar) as a software engineer (this is documented in the original Wiki Article). I added additional background information regarding the Q-Zar article, given that I had knowledge in this segment. Additionally, I quoted reference material to demonstrate this knowledge. It was a minor update and I am unsure why it was deleted.

2. I am a (minor) shareholder of Azure Healthcare, which owns Austco. I believe that I wrote the article in a non-biased format and given that the company is publically listed, I believe it warrented publication on the Wiki. However, it certaintly is not the same size as Cisco, although as a pubically listed entity I believed that it warrented a wiki article.

3. I note that a staff member uploaded an article about myself (with my permission) and accept that this has a conflict of interest. However, I instructed the staff member that any article should be non-biased and quote reputable sources, which they did.

If you could kindly review the above and make suggestions, I would welcome your input and will arrange the appropiate alterations.

Regards,

Nathan Buzza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbuzza (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Nbuzza and IP Allurecapital, consist entirely Promoting your self and things your related to and is considered WP:Spam. It has become apparent that your account's are only being used for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote yourself right? --Hu12 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12, thank you for your feedback.

The intention was not meant to be self promotion, but intended to additional information regarding the subjects that I have knowledge in. If you could highlight the areas that you feel are for promtional purposes, I would welcome their review, I thought that I had updated the Q-Zar article and the information regarding Azure Healthcare in an unbiased format and I was careful to cite third parties. I would greatly appreciate your input. I was not intending to become a regular wiki contributor, just a casual contributor updating projects that I have a working knowledge in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbuzza (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu12.

For the Q-Zar article (for which I was the original designer), would it be acceptable if I updated the wiki article for the historical information on the project if I remove references to myself ? I completed the project almost 20 years ago and have no financial interest in the business, but I am knowledgable of the early years of the project - including when we sold the business the U2 Investments (the investment arm of U2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbuzza (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:COI? After reading that, you should suggest changes on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New question about an old item....

[edit]

I noticed you had declined a request to remove freemasonrywatch.org from the meta spam blacklist about three years ago. That being the case, it shouldn't be able to be added to articles, but it's being done by User:Albertpirck here elsewhere. Could you look into why the blacklist is apparently not working?

Also, as per QUACK, I'm also sure this is User:Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). He was community banned years ago, but somebody usurped his username for universal login purposes, and LB's LTA page has disappeared. This is, by the way, precisely why I objected to the username change and whatever happened to the LTA - there's almost no one left who was here when the mess started way back when, and now the info's not handy. Nevertheless, could you check into that as well? MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like freemasonrywatch.org was removed from meta per this discussion. here's the Old request. If this situation has returned, there was no provision in the discussion preventing local blacklisting if this is still an issue. If this has again become a problem, make a detailed report at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions, I'll have a look at it. is this the LTA ? Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Lightbringer_(usurped_-_blocked)--Hu12 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. MSJapan (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting the majority of that out so quickly. The rest should be a matter of course. Some recent "testing of the waters" was missed, so I'm glad that was picked up. MSJapan (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The type of persistent POV/Spamming displayed in this case, I wouldn't assume they won't try to find a way around the blacklist... so watch for new users adding sneaky redirects. Let me know if you spot that, we'll add those also. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nohanortiz7

[edit]

You reverted this guy once. His pattern is to change the photos in articles on elections and politicians, from the current photo (one roughly contemporary to the election or to the politician's era of prominence) to some other, usually grossly anachronistic one (i.e., old 70s pic of Jerry Brown in article on 2010 California governor's race). In a couple of cases, the photo put in is no worse than the old; but that's not usually the case. Could you be another pair of eyes on this guy (whom I have warned now)? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's using an IP also;
Might be BLP issues, or at least its vandalism...--Hu12 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:95.23.243.175

[edit]

FYI: It appears you gave this guy a temporary block yesterday for EL spam (User talk:95.23.243.175), but he is at it again. Thanks! Location (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.41.130.38 has taken over for the same EL. Location (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paracetamol

[edit]

I noticed that you previously reverted the edits of User:Geniusbeauty at Paracetamol, so I just wanted to let you know that he is making similar edits to the article. I'm not sure whether the edits are appropriate or not, so I haven't reverted it myself, but just thought you might like to know. Deli nk (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reverted--Hu12 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dear Author/Hu12

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Artificial insemination. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helping a newbie

[edit]

Please see here. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding only links, and all 4 of those links being his domains over a multitude of articles is never a sign of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive archiving?

[edit]

Hi, in this edit you blew away all the major sections of that page, including blacklist removal requests, technical issues, etc. Was that intentional? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The templates stopped rendering archiving was necessary. These are just WikiProject spam reports and can be found archived here. Of the 26 reports, 23 were mine an 2 by MER-C and one by Tedder. Anything important would have been permalinked, however MER-C always duplicates and permalinks his formal blacklist request on the blacklist page. Never knew there was template limits, strange. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving was necessary, but was it necessary to remove all the page sections? Perhaps we should have a separate page for de-listing requests? It might be a good idea actually, to arrange cases as subpages similar to what is done at WP:SPI, with "click here to open a new case" and prepopulated templates. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no page sections to remove on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Sure were talking about the same page? Sounds like you talking about MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, which hasn't been archived since last month. --Hu12 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, damn. You're right. I was confused by the presence of an identical section on each page (latestmoviez.com) and thought I was looking at one page when it was the other. Been rattled today by learning of the loss of a job, thought I'd take my mind off it with a session on Wikipedia, and turns out I can't think straight. My apologies. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries friend, I understand. The two typically have identical content/cases anyways. Sorry to hear of the the loss. I'm thankful for all you do here on the project, keep up the good work.--Hu12 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson

[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure why you reverted the addition of this item. Is there doubt that he wrote it? (Gibson retweeted this and followed it with this). Or is there something else that I'm missing? Thanks! (reply here) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was spammed Special:Contributions/70.19.124.95. IP triggered our spam filters --Hu12 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Redbooks

[edit]

I saw your reversion of the Redbooks link at Lean Six Sigma. I restored the link because it doesn't seem very promotional and has a technical nature. Looking at the other contribs from that IP editor it does look like they may have been intending to promote IBM Redbooks by making numerous links. I don't have time right now to examine the appropriateness of the other Redbooks links but I think the one in Lean Six Sigma is appropriate and can stay. If you feel differently please let me know. Thanks. Pine✉ 21:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the note. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Hu12. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ResearchGate

[edit]

Hi Hu12, just to let you know, I have restored ResearchGate after a note was left on the talk page after you deleted yesterday per G12. I checked the sources you listed in the deletion log, but I think that Crunchbase likely copied from us and the other was certainly not copied word for word. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JPGandRingo

[edit]

Listen up man why you trying to deny the truth I just wrote ironic on the page "The Truth"?

  1. But seriously I was attacked by a so called "poet" with a pitchfork after a reading in 2011 and lost one of my eyes and an estimated 20% of brain tissue, this must be put on record for posterity

These are the facts, ague as we might — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGandRingo (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen up man, Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Additionaly, I'll reiterate What DMacks told you here. Sorry you found yourself in an unfortunate situation, with tragic results, however, this is vandalism and this is a BLP violation. Don't do either again, please. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steaua players

[edit]

Why remove Official FCSB profiles from Steaua players? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Dumitra%C8%99&diff=503934754&oldid=503924445 04:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.241.109 (talk)

Why are similar IP's Linkspamming that site over multiple articles, when it has a wiki page (FC Steaua București)? see WP:NONENGEL and WP:NOT#LINK--Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beacause i don't have account. Why you removed Official FCSB profiles from Steaua players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.234.156 (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benoy K Behl PROD

[edit]
Hi, I've removed your prod tag from Benoy K Behl because one contributor has found multiple references supporting notability. Sure, the thing was promotional but it is less so now and I am fairly confident that the major contributor has no conflict of interest. I'll try to give the thing a much-needed copyedit soon (the major contributor is new-ish and I have been guiding them for a couple of weeks or so now).

Obviously, you may disagree with my removal but with the citations that are now in place I think that this would have to be resolved at AfD. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro B. Ortiz

[edit]

Hello Hu12. I understand your concern and realize that some of my additions need stronger/better sources. I will work on that. I did believe, however, that I had done a sufficient job of supporting the Metropolitan Reticular Matrix Planning article with reliable sources. Would it be possible to restore it rather than having it link to Madrid Metropolitan Plan? The two are related but decidedly different topics. I thank you for your time.--Ajw222 (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it back, but you need to read WP:COI, Pedro.--Hu12 (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EmirOzdemir10

[edit]

Hello Hu12, can you please provide some guidance as to why the changes were reverted on the stage-gate model page? I am with the Product Development Institute, and the member company Stage-Gate International, and I am trying to ensure that the content surrounding new product development, and the Stage-Gate process, are factual and correctly presented on Wikipedia.

To begin, the term Stage-Gate is a registered trademark, and should be referenced using the registered trademark logo. Failure to reference Stage-Gate without the appropriate trademarks can result in a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of this business process, and it should be clearly noted that this is not a generic term. As I had referenced and cited the trademark number, I thought I had clearly shown that this was a factual piece of information.

With regards to the addition of links, I do see that I did not follow the link-adding protocols and will adhere to external linking practices. However, I would like to ensure that http://www.stage(hyphen)gate.com, and http://www.prod(hyphen)dev.com are not blacklisted, as I would like to add new pages regarding those two organizations.

Any explanation you can provide would be helpful. Thanks, EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2012 (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, and in this case, you are the Product Manager at Stage-Gate. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Product Development Institute and Stage-Gate. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Contributions to wikipedia by Product Development Institute and Stage-Gate under; Sunil Bechar(Marketing Communications at Stage-Gate Inc), Thai.nguyen@stage-gate.com, Dkrempa(Daniel Krempa. Director of Digital Platforms at Stage-Gate Inc), Sbechar(Marketing Communications at Stage-Gate Inc), Izabellalis(Izabella Lis. Product Manager at Stage-Gate International) and IP's 130.215.109.20, 70.25.21.97 (yours), 69.159.45.85, 69.157.46.2, 65.92.52.28 and others, consist entirely of promoting Product Development Institute and Stage-Gate and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through the history of these contributions throught the years as a whole, they all seem to be Product Development Institute and Stage-Gate related only. Please do not create articles or continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that the accounts and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". 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) 16:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate that adding links to Wikipedia can be considered SPAM-ing, and it is not my intent to spam. Rather, my intention is to provide direction to additional resources on the topic of new product development (Product Development Institute), and the Stage-Gate process. Now, there are two dilemma's that I'm facing that I'd like so help with (given the information you've provided):

1. The stage-gate model page has a lot of incorrect facts. First and foremost, the terms "stage-gate" is a trademarked term (which I had cited and referenced), and must not be confused with other terms, like "phase-gate". It is a proprietary process, that was developed by Dr. Cooper (as cited in some of the articles that were referenced). Yes, I do work for Stage-Gate International, and I can understand that there would be conflict of interest regarding adding information to this topic, however, we have a legal responsibility to ensure we are protecting our trademark, hence why I am trying to clean this page up. In the same way that other organizations are legally unable to infringe on our trademark, I would like to ensure that I have editing ability on the stage-gate model page, to ensure that the page contains the correct facts with respect to the research that was conducted in discovering and trademarking this process. How can I go about ensuring that my changes stick? (it seems like the references I cited the last round of edits didn't seem to stay and rather the entire article was reverted to an older, incorrect version).

2. I also understand that some organizations post information about their company on Wikipedia, and I would like to do the same with ours. I do understand that this is not an exercise in link-farming or anything like that, so would it be safe to use pages like PRTM, Sopheon, Planisware, and Product Development and Management Association as a template/guide for building a company page on Wikipedia - remaining unbiased and factual about the information about the organization, while still having an external link that goes to the company page (like these other companies do)?

Thanks, EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles mentioned (PRTM, Sopheon, Planisware, and Product Development and Management Association) are all very poor articles. Following their lead as an editor with a conflict of interest would be an extremely bad choice. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blog website or not?

[edit]

An IP appears to be adding external links to a blog website; see these contributions. Should they be deleted? Snowman (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its stil Linkspamming, I've reverted. --Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teachingyeshua

[edit]

Your name isn't Evan (); thanks for cleaning up the mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the account, cheers ;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DVBViewer

[edit]

I declined your speedy deletion nomination of DVBViewer. First of all, software isn't one of the specifically mentioned types of article subjects that can be eligible for A7 speedy deletion. Secondly, someone already tried to PROD this article for notability- and it failed. G11 needs significance, which is easier to meet than notability, so it's not appropriate in this case. You can try to delete at WP:AfD for notability though.--Slon02 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purge (album)

[edit]

please read WP:AGF before hitting the revert button. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Page

[edit]

I don´t know if you´re an Admin, but you changed my Page in a stupid way Would you take care of this an get it red again. Thank you. --Izadso (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet claims

[edit]

Please do not bully people who are not regular users of this site. I am not a sockpuppet, and have no connection to the creator of DVBViewer besides that I am a user. Ezekial 9 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Revert

[edit]

Hi Hu12 can you undo reverts on my some pages. Specially on Erin Cafaro. I had worked alot on this article. added carrer and infobox, by this article i hesitate to edit more articles on wikipedia. Some more articles related to 2012 Olympics, where Medals were not added, i added, but you revert my edits. only will edit more articles after your reply. reply me pls. thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishnkd (talk • contribs) 03:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can add back the content, however you'll need to read WP:BLP first. For example in Erin Cafaro creating a section like this needs to be properly sourced with "Verifiable Reliable Sources". thanks--Hu12 (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply, Sir Please undo all my articles, i 'll not spamming anymore like doabaheadlines.co.in, if u feel it. I shall b very thankful to you if you undo all reverts, thanks in advance. b'coz i dreaming in the night, that i 'm editing alot on wikipedia. thanks.

IP with CMU website

[edit]

That IP editor seemed to have made a relevant and constructive edit to Grooveshark, at first glance.

Most spammers have no such merits. Is it possible that the IP is a potential good editor to be encouraged? Maybe your message and reversions were a bit harsh, at least on first glance. (You probably know more than I do about the IP's behavior.)

I wrote a message on the IP's talk page. It would be best to continue the conversation there.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

Your earlier abuse of administrator privileges and the minor edit function is referred to here. Unfortunately, I have just been unshackled so could not object earlier. That your user page prominently displays a box proclaiming yourself as "an abusive administrator on the English Wikipedia" is all too fitting. --86.40.96.187 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate it if you could revert yourself when you realise it wasn't vandalism. --86.40.96.187 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You triggered two abuse filters "categories removed" and "possible vandalism" while repeatedly replacing categories with an external link to RTÉ Commercial Enterprises Ltd over multiple articles ([15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]). This is considered Link Spamming. To your second point, WP:ROUGE resides in Category:Wikipedia humor. Perhaps reading this advice will prevent being reverted in the future by other editors. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the WP:LINKSPAM in Emerald City (play)

[edit]

Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thank you. I've created a report of the accounts involved, if your interested.--Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Bell

[edit]

What are you talking about? I have close to 3,000 edits in the Bert Bell article. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problem, you've clogged up the Page history all the way back to April 2011. Of the last 2700 edits, about 50 or so were other editors, the rest were yours(including your IP's). You've done a nice job on the article and have expanded it (before and after), however most your edits 87% are grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging (superficial). Try using the preview button before you save so you can edit larger chunks of content. cheers --Hu12 (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from alternative languages

[edit]

Thank you for tagging recently created redirects with {{R from alternative language}}. Not everything in Cyrillic is in Russian though, so when you tag such redirects, please check what the language is. Gorobay (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing user's post from their own talk page

[edit]

Hello. I've replied to this as a talk page stalker at the user's talk page. But before you added that warning, you removed the user's last reply to a previous conversation between myself and that user, with this edit. Please could you explain why you did that? Thank you, Struway2 (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was in error, thanks for replacing it. I've replied to your comment, however, your satement does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thought it probably was just a mistake. I've replied over there: think perhaps we don't interpret LINKSPAM/ELYES the same way. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. I've requested opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Opinions wanted about including a link to a player's club profile in their Ext links section. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Why are you asking them permission to spam the external links section? That wasn't the suggestion. Please re-read my suggestion. Has nothing to with external links section. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content Delivery Network Page / Broken Links

[edit]

Hi, if you are not happy with the new sources for broken links can you delete it completely so that people would not argue about brokent links on wikipedia. Best..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.57.19 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why did you call for this page to be deleted? It is currently an orphan, which doesn't call for deletion (according to wikipedia), especially as it's still being developed. Unless you have a clear awareness of electronic dance music and the self-help industry, it doesn't make sense for you to call for a deletion on subjects you have limited knowledge on. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billyjazz79, you have made 176 edits since the article was created in November of 2010‎. You can not validly claim it's "being developed" after two years and be taken seriously. All topics are subject to Wikiprdias inclusion criteria and must demonstrate that notability to be included. My knowledge of the electronic dance music industry is irrelevant, as is your assumption of it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12. Your desire to delete this page is mumbo jumbo. I've checked with admins on wikipedia who have contributed more than you and you are just looking for bones to pick (as you are known for). There is nothing "wrong" with this article. It needs a clean up, granted; but to ask for it to be deleted is rather silly. Why exactly do you believe it should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, I have a lot of work to do over the next month thus, I do not have time to go back and forth for a wiki article or get into a political debate. If you truly feel that this article doesn't contribute to wiki or to someone who searches for this article, delete it and do it promptly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

120.28.247.28

[edit]

Hi. You warned 120.28.247.28 (talk · contribs · count) for spamming. I've seen those same bogus edit summaries ("Added Jack Lang's info",etc.) used by another anonymous spammer in the last week or two.

I wish I could remember who or where. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some how seems familiar to me also, however i cant place where.... --Hu12 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: 125.60.231.188 (talk · contribs · count). Both IPs are in the Philippines but registered to different ISPs. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find. Would be nice to be able to search edit summaries. Must be plain ole SEO, I don't see the connection with the links the connection is they are all adsense related Adsense google_ad_client = pub-1687575123054330 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report).--Hu12 (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The terms of service of these sites states " This site is controlled by Perfect Insight, Inc. in the State of California, USA."...--Hu12 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: terms of service -- look at this Google search: [24] I think perhaps the whole world has plagiarized some company's legal terms -- for example, I doubt Northwestern University's student newspaper is controlled by our spammer.
Interesting. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the same search. Templated up to page 4, but its endless...
..UUgh!--Hu12 (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Perfect Insights has anything to do with this -- I think the only common denominator is that a lot of people have been using the same cut-and-paste boilerplate for years without examining who they lifted it from (some company called Perfect Insights that actually paid a lawyer instead of stealing their boilerplate from someone else).

I think this is the map to the real snake's nest: www.foxdirect.com. Using that, I started finding other IPs in Las Vegas and Chicago + one in Bangkok (the site owner is a traveler according to his blog. He also owns a bunch of Las Vegas-related domains).

I've posted that stuff at User talk:120.28.247.28#Additions. I went through a bunch of it, but not the final batch of 186 I just posted.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it today with the same IP he's used recently, 125.60.231.188 notwithstanding the note I left him about Google blacklisting, etc.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Err, Google does use our blacklist? Could I have a linky? I'm interested to read that! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, ask Jehochman -- I think he confirmed this in a conversation at an SEO meeting with Matt Cutts. Google doesn't automatically use our list (which is a smart move on their part since we blacklist things they don't care about like URL shorteners) but I gather they do look at it. I don't know if this means they investigate new entries as they're added or just consult it when they have their own suspicions about a domain.
My two personal take-aways from this:
  • Spammers need to avoid us.
  • We have an ethical duty to only use our blacklist after a spammer's had multiple warnings (unless there are other factors: malware, BLP attacks, disruption, clear knowledge of our rules as evidenced by proxies or sockpuppets, etc). This is because: we're big, we have influence, and not every spammer is a bad person; some just don't understand our rules at first.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More spam is likely and it may help to understand our spammer's patterns:

  • He travels all over; see www.getfoxy.com for his latest location
  • At least while he's in the Far East, he's been adding spam typically between 0000 and 0800 UTC
  • Recently he's used edit summaries like these. (See the early September entries).
  • His IPs when he's traveling can be very dynamic (Internet cafes?) and used by other people even in the same day.
  • I have blacklisted every domain of his that I could find but he keeps adding new ones. Blacklist them as you see them.
  • Assuming he keeps his current pattern, I use this link to the most recent 5000 anonymous article-space edits (typically 3 to 6 hours worth), then search the page for the term, "'s info)". This is very simple and quick; I just wish I could look back more than 5000 edits.
  • Let's hope he keeps to the same distinctive pattern (and doesn't see this discussion).

I am often offline -- can others check every so often? Blacklist any thing as you see it. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the devil, here are two more in the last several hours: Special:Contributions/180.190.150.164.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a lot of work, but I'm hoping our friend finally starts to understand we're serious when he goes to add his links in a few hours. I think I've now found and blacklisted most but not all of his domains.
"All your base are belong to us" (I hope).--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tps-reply here, Jehochman. Now to turn this around, I am also interested in doing this backward. I do that to a certain extend with the linkwatchers, but it would be great to see more professional lists of spam-domains, which may include links that are known to be spam, blacklisted elsewhere, spammed here, but have not been caught by us. Does Google provide such a service (I am already looking into their fishing and malware system, but those are small fishes which generally stay out of the 'Street of Wikipedia' in the 'Large Internet Ocean'). The followers of m:User:LiWa3 on IRC do get early information about certain spam-related info (clickbank IDs are detected, e.g.) on added domains, and I have bashed editors around based on that information. Ideas? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of project-management software

[edit]

Why did you removed here the references? I was/am trying to get all stuff referenced (although I'm very busy atm) I know that these are not the best references, but better than no references at all! Moreover http://www.techgeeze.com/ looks like a typical computer online mag... mabdul 12:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabdul. The article for which the citation you mention above, Celoxis, already contains that specific techgeeze.com reference. The purpose of having comparison/list's is primarily for navigation of a structured topic and since only Notable project-management articles are included, references should be place in the respective articles.--Hu12 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of living persons noticeboard: R. J. Ellory

[edit]

Hi, just to let you know that I was contacted by one of editors involved in the dispute at R. J. Ellory. I offered advice and opened a BLP discussion on his/their behalf. I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#R. J. Ellory. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cranel Company Page

[edit]

Hu12, I have returned the content of the Cranel page to the original form. Could you =lease review and confirm it abides by Wikipedia guidelines and will not be deleted. Thank you.66.192.200.250 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original content was developed with Wikipedia Writers - support@wikipediawriter.com, and the individual's name was Zach (no last name was provided).66.192.200.250 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference added - Columbus Business First - Cranel CFO Recognized [26]66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference added - ISOdx president interviewed by John Ragsdale, analyst with TSIA "Eye On Service"66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, whats your relationship to Cranel, Inc.?--Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No relation, just trying to help out a fellow Columbus-Ohio based business owner compete. I don't understand why the Eye on Service blog fails as an independent source? The TSIA = Technology Services Industry Association, and it is their job to identify new technologies that may be of use to their members. Neither Cranel nor ISOdx is a member of that organization, to my knowledge. Therefore, isn't this a third-party reference?66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how I answered your question but you've neglected to answer mine. Telling.66.192.200.250 (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)You may have noted the remark at the top of the page. Note that not all third-party references make something notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Wikipedia Writers -- I've been tracking that person for several years. I think it's easier to track the writers and quietly tag articles (and delete where appropriate) than it is to block them, drive them underground, then have them resurface with new accounts and new articles we don't know about. Also, I figure tagging articles with {{coi}}, {{notability}} and {{advert}} doesn't help their customer relations, either. Of course, you don't want to let the paid editors get too powerful.
This is the same reasoning I use when blacklisting domains but not blocking spammers -- better the problem I can see than the sockpuppet I can't.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Another reason I didn't sanction that writer (or even tip my hand) was that he was also producing a [[lot of useful content.


Electro article

[edit]

In the Electro (music) article, why did you remove the link to the 1984 The Face article on the electro music & b-boy scene? The 'classic' link text needed some toning down, but I was rather grateful someone managed to find some period literature about the genre. —mjb (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author Apiento (talk · contribs)(by APIENTO testpressing.org/author/apiento/) WP:COI WP:SPAMMED a link to his own work...over multiple articles..--Hu12 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


We've gotten off to a bad start

[edit]

* {{cite web|title=50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation|author=Connett, Paul, Ph.D.|publisher=Fluoride Action Network|date=2012-09-15|url=http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/|accessdate=2012-09-21}} This resource is extensively footnoted.

I was seeking to add this {{Cite web}} of 50 Reasons added to Water fluoridation controversy#Further reading. The evidence you provided me of spamming really has nothing more than someone asked to have it blacklisted, but not really why, partially due to non-permanent links. The one thing I noticed was that someone spammed AN/I(?), and alleged it due to persons suspected being Freedom5000. Nothing links to what was actually done, including the AN/I discussion, just evil spamming sockpuppets, blah, blah, blah!. I looked at your link, just didn't see anything relevant.

So, here I am, trying to do something reasonable and simple, but having to deal with sesitive admin feelings over some conflict that doesn't concern us here. I understand the unique frustrations of cleaning up after anti-social behavior on Wikipedia. I tended certain articles and would beg admins to do something like what now exists and is commonplace: semi-protection. Just to keep the need for cleanup down to a dull roar. I understand that spamming blacklists are a similar aid in cutting down the noise. Blocking a significant public information site is a big deal, however. This is like having NORML.org on that list: you really couldn't discuss opposition to cannabis prohibition without citing them. FAN seems to be of a similar staure in the opposition to water fluoridation. A whole tissue of similar organizations reference it. This is a case where the blacklist is simply not the right tool.

I started a discussion on what I am trying to accomplish here, as well as the reasoning supporting it. Please join in, if you like. I think the whole domain should be unblacklisted, but allowing me to make this reference as a one-off would be a good compromise. The link to this paper belongs precisely here. BTW, note the authors.

I'm also planning to ask brangifer about his request, but thought I would mend fences first. I was never trying to be vexatious. =)

Best Regards,

-SM 09:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, I have replied to SM here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walk-forward

[edit]

Hu12, Can I reverse your changes to the Walk-forward optimization? The original article was criticized for (a) the lack of citation, (b) the how-to-content. I corrected it and explained the walk-forward based on the best reference I know and use. Unfortunately, you returned the article to the old version written by a vendor. Further, I planed to put more pictures as I explained on the Talk page for "Walk-forward optimization". I also asked for help on my "talk" page and received advice from another member. Thank you. Seaman4516 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large rewrites should have consensus on the talk page. Also exclude references to "The Encyclopedia of Trading Strategies", I've noticed you and another account referencing different articles similarly;
and are the only two accounts adding links to oxfordstrat.com (company Oxford Capital Strategies Ltd)[27][28][29][30][31], similarly i'm also noticing quite a bit of "'Stefan Martinek" related content being added. Please see WP:NOT, WP:COI and WP:RS.--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hu12. I probably leave the initiative in "Walk-forward" for more experienced editors and make only some minor changes when I feel it is justified; I do not want to fight with editors. One final question: on "Trading Strategies" in "Talk" section were warnings from Wikipedia about viruses -- after deleting links I assumed that "Talk" page can be cleaned. You reversed my edit and there are now the original warnings. Was my step wrong? Should I never delete any talk even when it is scary and not relevant any more? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaman4516 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are not deleted, discussions get archived as a matter of record. I understand your intention removing the content was in good faith, however the offending link was d-hyperlinked shortly after it was reported three years ago. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am confused, is this where we come to tell you that you are a moron for removing the American Association of Bariatric Surgeons link from the Lap Band page? I have been using this page to educate patients for going on two years and for some reason you think this link is inappropriate? It's not spam, its the equal to the AMA for doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.67.184 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chip in here. Your comment above is rude and unhelpful.
Of the links you added,[32][33] my own personal opinion is that asmbs.org is absolutely worthwhile. niddk.nih.gov and mja.com.au also add value. On the other hand, lapband.info and findlapbandsurgeon.com are commercial junk.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP from Baptist Health System, the link, asmbs.org, is appropriate on the American Society for Bariatric Surgery page, where the link belongs and already exists. Unfortunatly it appears that you keep repeatedly misplacing it on Adjustable gastric band. To effectively "educate patients", one would first need to find the right page. --Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific about deletion of video lecture on Lolita article

[edit]

The External link added by another user was a video lecture by a literature professor uploaded by the copyright owner. I don't see why it violates WP:ELNO. Could you be more specific, please??--WickerGuy (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily WP:ELNO #4 however #11 and #7 can apply. This podcast (Big Ideas video podcast) was added, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines, by an account associated with the link (bigideas.tvo.org/contributor/gregg-thurlbeck). thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that clarifies it. I don't know if you have seen the note at the bottom of his Talk page where he says "the larger problem was that I linked to the YouTube versions of the podcasts which often have an ad appended to the top end of the video. In future I will link to the original video housed on TVO's Brightcove player. The copyright holder for this material is TVO, the public, educational broadcaster where I work. They are happy to have this material linked to on Wikipedia and they receive no material benefit as a result of the link." Actually, there are some other good online video lectures on the same novel, but I'm not sure about copyright issues there.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:76.189.121.57

[edit]

They can blank the talk page if they want - the block has been lifted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boing. I just saw your comment right after I posted mine below. ;) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boing, thanks also for posting on the Musicians talk page about the vocal range issue. I appreciate it. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page

Why did you put the content back on my talk page that I removed? What I removed is allowed per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. Thank you. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I saw Boing's comment to you (above) which supported what I told you. Thanks. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages of anonymous users may be blanked or deleted as part of routine housekeeping if they meet the following criteria:
  1. Never been blocked
  2. Not using any unsubstituted templates (e.g., {{SharedIPEDU}})
  3. No edits within the last year
  4. No talk page activity within the last year
  5. No incoming links to the page
IP's change, transfer and are not user accounts, which can blank or vanish.[34]
--Hu12 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One problem. That section is for "Old IP talk pages" only. Mine is not an old IP talk page. I am an unregistered (IP) user removing comments from the talk page currently assigned to me. So those guidelines do not apply in this case. It should also be noted that "old" talk pages are ones that have had "No edits within the last year" and "No talk page activity within the last year". The relevant guidelines are noted below. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's general maintenance by other editors - IP's are allowed to blank their own talk pages, and this is clearly the same user doing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages of IP's are not user accounts, which can blank.--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Show us the policy that says an IP editor using the same IP address cannot blank messages that were clearly addressed to them. Anyway, try applying a bit of common sense rather than trying to insist on hard and fast rules - why on earth should this editor be forced to retain old warnings on their talk page that were clearly addressed to them and are no longer needed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has edited for 3 days been blocked for 1 day and has threatened other editors. the WP:USER policy is for registered accounts. IP get reassigned, transfered and shared, they are not user accounts. please show me where WP:USER applies.--Hu12 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read what it says below! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:REMOVED is very clear. It says, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". I cleared my own talk page and did not remove any of the following types of content that are prohibited from being removed:

  • Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction
  • Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress)
  • Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).
  • For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address.
  • {{Noindex} added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus). Note this can safely be removed from talk pages and subpages where it has no effect.

Thanks, --76.189.121.57 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, with all due respect, you are misunderstanding the relevant policies and what a user is. First of all, WP:REMOVED is a subsection of WP:USER. And in the very first subsection of WP:USER, WP:USERSUBPAGE, it shows in the first two paragraphs that a user page and user talk page apply to both registered an unregistered accounts; each of those two paragraphs contain a "This link is to yours" link. When I click on it, it of course goes to my user talk page (76.189.121.57), because I am the user with that IP address. Where WP:REMOVED says that policy does not prohibit "unregistered users" from clearing their own talk page, "unregistered users" means IPs. By the way, the fact that Boing blocked me for several hours yesterday, and the reasons why, have absolutely nothing to do with this policy issue. So I am perplexed as to why you, especially as an administrator, would choose to make it part of this discussion. And for the record, I was not blocked for "threatening" other editors; I was blocked for being rude (insulting) to others. My only "threat", as Boing will verify, was telling one editor (not "editors" (plural) as you indicated) that I would report them to an administrator if they continued editing in a way I was opposed to. I have learned from my mistakes. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HUMAN also shows that IPs are synonomous with "unregistered users". And the What an unregistered user can't do subsection begins by saying, "As a general rule, unregistered users can do everything that registered users can" and that they can "contribute to policy proposals and do (almost) everything else that a registered user can do". --76.189.121.57 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP's don't fall under Wikipedia:User page and IP's are not currently given the same latitude under WP:USER as "registered users", however I'll extend some of the same latitude by creating an archive for you. You should however consider creating an account. --Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hu, I noticed you just archived my talk page without my permission. You have no right to do that. WP:REMOVED clearly states that archiving is "preferred", not required. I feel that your behavior and repeated altering of my talk page is verging on harassment. Please stop. I have done nothing wrong and have violated no policies. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listen up Hu12, if you don't stop fucking around with other user's talk pages (and yes, "unregistered users" are users, just like registered ones, and they have almost the same rights) and pay some attention to WP:REMOVE which is unambiguous, you're going to find yourself the subject of an ANI report. I'm off to bed now - I hope I don't wake tomorrow and feel I'm forced down that path. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I've deleted that archive page you made - you have absolutely no right to force a user to have one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
..And how would that AN/I read; "fellow admin reverts anon page blanking once then creates talk archive"?...Give me a break. And yes, "unregistered users" are users, but that's not what i was referring to. Additionaly this comment/threat is way out of line, consider that your only warning. --Hu12 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12, I urge you to reconsider your "only warning" to me - you can report me to ANI for incivility if you like, but you'll find that the current mood regarding civility warnings is not in your favour, especially when you are the one who is wrong about policy and have been refusing to listen. Your behaviour here as an admin has been woefully lacking, and if you carry on refusing to consider that you might have been wrong, and won't listen when three other editors (two of them admins) tell you so and provide evidence, you'll find out soon enough what my ANI report will say. You've made a mistake, so have the decency to admit it and we can move on without any need for further action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USER is a content Guideline (not a policy) as with content guidelines, exceptions do apply. In this case, a recently blocked user, with a history of blanking article space content, blanking Talk-page content, twice along with all of the other stuff which ultimatly lead to 76.189.121.57 being blocked Reverting in what outwardly appeared to be continued blanking straight after a block would seem appropriate. Both you and 76.189.121.57 (Road Runner HoldCo LLC Allocated IP), seemed to mistake my comments above about IP's not being WP:USER and the difference of latitude given, this was never meant offend or imply that "unregistered users" are not people, it was technical in nature. With that being said, you blatantly breached civility, Failing to assume my single revert as good faith, attributed malice to my attempting to provide a new IP with an archive, and continuing to threaten "further action"? This is unacceptable and is certainly not a civil way to interact. Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, however at this point the matter is closed and any further discussion becomes quite secondary to the behavior on display.--Hu12 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have no option but to take this dispute to AN for resolution - I will provide you with a link when the report is ready. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hu, I didn't see your 21:42 post until after I posted at 21:47. Unregistered users (IPs) are users! I have presented far more policies to you than was necessary to prove this to you. Boing is an administrator (and the one who blocked me yesterday) and has told you the same thing. I am asking you nicely once again to please stop altering my talk page as I have violated no rules. I have no idea why you are treating me like this. I've never even crossed paths with you before this. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hu12, I noticed that the guideline which you quote is from Simple:Wikipedia:User_page#Old IP talk pages, which is a different Mediawiki project, and which has different guidelines than this project. For en.wikipedia, the relevant comparable guideline is at Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, and is worded as indicated by the IP and by Boing! said Zebedee. I'm guessing this is the source of the confusion causing the dispute, although I could be mistaken. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've also commented on this possible cause of the confusion at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee‎. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hu, I see that you've again made accusations about me (at 10:20, 9 October 2012) that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, so I feel it's necessary to respond since it relates to my reputation. I still have no idea why you seem to have this grudge against me and have repeatedly, and inaccurately, brought up previous actions by me that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of blanking one's own talk page per mutliple guidelines. You apparently do not like me, even though we've never had contact prior to this page-blanking issue, but I can't do anything about your feelings. But what I can do is to ask you to please adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and to stop violating the rights of other editors. In terms of your characterizations of me based on my previous edits, let me address them briefly to show how out-of-context they are. First, you claimed I have a "history" of blanking article space content, but what the edit filter log actually shows is that I did this in two articles (Greenberg and X Factor) and they were legitimate, good-faith removals for inappropriate content, as evidenced by other editors who agreed not to put back the content. So there's no bad conduct in this regard, let alone a history of it. Next, you claimed I had a history of talk page blanking. But what you failed to mention is that it was my own talk page from which I removed content, which every administrator in the AN has verified is allowed. If I want to remove completed content to reduce clutter on my talk page, Wikipedia allows me to do that. Finally, you alluded to "all of the other stuff" which led to my being blocked by Boing. Well, "all of the other stuff" was my speaking rudely to some other editors. I paid the price by being blocked for several hours and then we all moved on. But what does any of that have to do with you unblanking and archiving my talk page, without my permission and in violation of multiple guidelines? Nothing. So while you may think it's productive to repeatedly try to characterize me as a bad person and a disruptive editor, it's actually inappropriate (especially for an administrator), hurtful, and irrelevant. I acknowledged and apologized for my mistakes. Have you done the same? --76.189.121.57 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Barek MediaWiki =/= a Wikimedia project! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabdul (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dispute with admin User:Hu12 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chess-db.com

[edit]

I left you a message, can you please have a look at my comments and question here User_talk:91.17.176.197. I want to remove tagging me as spammer, as this was not my intention. I have also just seen that another Wikipedia user has reverted one of the reverted links (this was not me!), so it would help me to clarify to what extend you can agree linking to chess-db Chess Player profiles would be relevant.

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Hu12. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Range block - 117.205.128.0/20.
Message added 02:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sorry I forgot to leave a message when I sent the email. But left it now in case you hadn't seen the email. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

... for this and this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting;)--Hu12 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I left a note at the url below, thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.114.24.4#Additions_of_http:.2F.2F.theseventhart.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.53.75 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TVRage.com

[edit]

i hope this is not being counted as disruptive but is there no recourse that can be taken to get a site whitelisted by the owner or does a third party need to do this spontaniously (with that i am implying i will not right after you answer create a fake nickname and pretend to be a third party interested in getting it unbanned). I'm just curious what is it that i can do other they just let it rest because i do believe the points i made were valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.187.31 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' or those who where involved in spamming them. You're only here on Wikipedia to advance the interests of yourself and TVRage.com and is not appropriate, particularly when it there is a conflict of interest as it violates Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates). And no, your request rationale when weighted against the actual evidence, does not make for valid or compelling reasons for de-listing.--Hu12 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI Issue

[edit]

With reference to 02:21, 19 October 2012 Hu12 (talk | contribs) deleted page NCache (product) (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Hi, I am Kevin Ryan,an employee of Alachisoft. I would like to recreate this page with declaration of conflict of interest.I would try to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and be neutral in presenting the facts.Kindly guide me how to do this since its been asked by Wikipedia that I have to contact you before creating this page. Waiting for your guidance. regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Alachisoft (talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts
Alachisoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Khiladi 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Tonydent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Billbrixton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MikeSaeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Naveedanjum85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
75.24.90.158 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)DIYATECH CORP
75.24.90.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) DIYATECH CORP
Kevin Alachisoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
First, a username like yours violates our username policy. Unfortunatly Alachisoft has had a long history of exploiting Wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promotion and advertising. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote Alachisoft products--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK channel line up Afd

[edit]

Just to let you know, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) as a further extension of the current debate on channel listings on Wikipedia. Your input would be appreciated doktorb wordsdeeds 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange warning

[edit]

I just got some warning when logged into the account. I am new to wikipedia editing, and apologize if i did something wrong, but I do not understand why my account is considered sock puppet with some other accounts or names. Never heard of them. I was simply editing pages to add abantecart, because we have been using this software for a wile and got a lot of help from developers on their forum. Please do not block my account. I do not spam. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccommercewisdom (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume your statement; "we have been using this software" refers to the site ecommercewisdom.com;
Which appears to be promoting AbanteCart and algozone, subjects which have become recently active with multiple "new" accounts.
  • ecommercewisdom.com/revolution-online-shopping/ "AbanteCart – a Revolution in Online Shopping'
  • ecommercewisdom.com/algozone-exclusive-partnership-abantecart-innovative-open-source-shopping-cart-application/ "AlgoZone exclusive partnership with AbanteCart Innovative Open Source Shopping Cart Application"
May want to read WP:NOPAY. Additionaly, usernames like yours violates our username policy.--Hu12 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

[edit]

User:Kevin Alachisoft is acceptable these days, whereas User:Alachisoft is not. It still doesn't let them violate COI, but "so-and-so at wherever`usernames are now the norm (✉→BWilkins←✎) 06:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bwilkins. This company has been a long term problem, persistently using Wikipedia for promotion. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Alachisoft_.28DIYATECH_CORP.29_Spamming. --Hu12 (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of User:Askozia

[edit]

Hi Hu12. I've just unblocked this user, whom you blocked for a violation of the username policy, to allow him to change his username. Thought I'd drop you a note to let you know. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your bulk removal of content in "List of real-time operating systems"

[edit]

Hi Hu12, please stop your bulk removal of contents in the List of real-time operating systems article, otherwise these edits must be considered disruptive. Over the course of the past months you have repeatedly deleted a large amount of entries in this list without giving proper edit summaries except for "cleanup", although you have been reverted five times by several editors including another admin and myself. It would be perfectly fine if you find an error or deleted a single entry if it is really questionable. However, you must not completely redefine the purpose of the list, and even delete well-known real-time operating systems including some, for which we have articles (which, BTW, is *not* a prerequisite to be mentioned in that list, neither by Wikipedia policies nor the explicitly defined purpose of that list, as stated in the article itself). If you want major changes to the article, please propose them on the article's talk page and seek a consensus, as anybody else is obligated to do as well. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Purpose of Lists in wikipedia is used for internal navigation and "...lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space. ". Wikipedia has 6,908,467 and is optimized for readers over editors, redlinks and non notable non article entries are unhelpful to readers. Non-article entries do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia. Please Write the Article First. Additionaly, "Lists" are subject to Wikipedia's other policies such as WP:NOTDIR and WP:SPAM. Equally, Wikipedia is not a guide nor a repository to any/every real-time operating system in existence. I've respectfully reverted. --Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Net channels AFD

[edit]

Hi, Hu. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Spam?

[edit]

Hu12 -- Today you issued me a warning to post what you call "spam" into Wikipedia. Let me understand just what constitutes spam. If I have an article that is directly on point to the Wikipedia page and I add it to the External Links section, why is that wrong? What am I missing here?

For example if I write a story with in depth research on the Fiat G.55 aircraft. Why would it be wrong to include it in the External Links section on that page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55 -- can you tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvanhare (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I publish a website called HistoricWings.com..." -- Tvanhare, 15 September 2012
Unfortunatly the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, its your website. Your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote historicwings.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Tvanhare and IP 46.195.187.120, consist mainly of adding external links to historicwings.com and is considered WP:LINKSPAM. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be historicwings.com related only. It has become apparent that your account and IP are only being used for self-promotion. Since your site is also an Adsense site you have a financial connection to this topic, See "public relations, and marketing". Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site.--Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all external links according to "your interpretation" considered spam? I ask this because in the Melanchthon article I see where you removed a link somebody provided that appears entirely legitimate. In particular, it seems to be viable source material (Calvin Theological Seminary at Calvin University) that you have decided is "spamm" (spelling is yours). So are all external links on Wikipedia with of course, whatever very narrow exception that you tolerate, spam? I am not religious at all but there seems to be no basis whatsoever for your action. Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was in 2011?! Any ways that specific link was added by IP 64.134.67.57, and was one of the spam IP's that were a part of a "SPAMM" campaign which affected multiple language Wikipedia projects promoting the Post-Reformation Digital Library. Perhaps your unaware of Wikipedia's policies against WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, all of which apply in that case. My misspelling of of the the word spam was obviously unintentional, your using it here serves no other purpose than you being a dick.--Hu12 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the quick response to my G7 request. —Stepheng3 (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome, thank you for all your contributions. Cheers --Hu12 (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to GreatNonProfits

[edit]

Hello, I saw you tagged and deleted the url's I added to various nonprofit organizations yesterday. I personally am a moderator on a couple forums and I understand why you would want to block self promotion for the integrity of the site. However while I was in fact acting under instruction from my company, we are a nonprofit organization and our main goal in adding our review links was to add support to the various organizations. Our reviews are comprised of users testimonies about the organizations, not in any way influenced by our own opinions within the company. You'll note I didn't add to a couple top rated non profits, namely American Red Cross, as our review of them is actually quite negative and I didn't want to look like we were spamming for the sake of simply promoting our site. So if you could maybe allow or suggest a way in which to allow us to help by adding to the discussion of these NPO's that would be greatly appreciated. And if not as a moderator I understand and respect your decision. Thank's for your time.

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.239.33 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not allow that. See conflict of interest, public relations, and marketing, Advertising and conflicts of interest, link spamming and What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, user testimonies are Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedia's specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Wikipedia is about content not external links, nor do links alone improve the encyclopedia. --Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links on poker blind page

[edit]

Wondering why you removed the external links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_(poker). I added those links 4 years ago when I expanded the page because they are resources used frequently in the poker community when creating blind structures for tournaments. My main thought here was that since Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, then some links to pages that are would be helpful for users looking for such things. I've read through the external link policy, and can't figure out why those aren't appropriate. Maybe I missed something. What do you think? Paradoxbomb (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links build add content or meaning to our encyclopedia. The content you added, has sat unreferenced for four years, neither of those links are reliable sources or verify that content. Your Main edits since then (including your IP's) is when the links are removed. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to maintain those links inclusion, right?--Hu12 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. There aren't exactly a lot of reliable sources on poker blinds (at least according to the guidelines on a reliable source). The page on homepokertourney is probably the closest thing - it's been around forever and has been used in a lot of the poker tournaments I've played in. The other site has a tool for trying out different blind options. From the external link guidelines:

  • Is the site content accessible to the reader? - yes
  • Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? - yes. useful, informative, factual
  • Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? - yes (they've both been there for years)

Further, integrating the content of these two websites borders on plagiarism in the case of homepokertourney, and is impossible in the other case. Based on that, I think the page is more useful with the the links in place. I realize this is the only page I've really edited. I did so because I was looking for info on blind structures years ago for my own home tournaments, naturally hit wikipedia, and found the page sorely lacking. Once I learned more, I expanded it, added some theory, and some links to sites that helped me out. I even worked with a current editor to improve my contribution. My edit is still the main edit to the page after the initial creation, and the links have been there for a long time, with no other editors seeing fit to remove them. I left other edits to the page in place as I'm not trying to be the edit police. Yours was the first one that I thought actually made the page less useful, so I reached out. Not everyone is trying to link spam. Paradoxbomb (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Many thanks for the barnstar. That was very thoughtful of you. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EmmaLangham

[edit]

Hey, I don't know if you noticed, but User talk:EmmaLangham continues to spamlink articles, and has blanked your request to quit it from her talk page. She's done it now at (at least) Robert Crumb, Justin Green (cartoonist), Ben Katchor, Aline Kominsky-Crumb, Françoise Mouly‎, Seth (cartoonist)‎, Art Spiegelman, Chris Ware and Daniel Clowes since your message. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 06:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and temporarily blocked the user for Spamming. Thanks for reporting the continued abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating the new start-class article Burners Without Borders, and for improving Wikipedia's coverage about NGO's. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Northamerica1000, very much appreciated.--Hu12 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Anti-Spam Barnstar
To Hu12, thank you for removing spam from Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Axl, this means alot.--Hu12 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay.com

[edit]

I saw a sock inserting this and was thinking that I had seen where this was being spammed (I removed some yesterday) but can't find any report. It does match up to User:Torontojack's spamming. Thought this might be useful to you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start a report (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#cosplaymemories.com) to track this. Pretty brazen for them to come back and start spamming same thing the very next day. Probably means they'll be back again.. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I have memories of cosplay as well .. where did I see that? --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 05:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same?

There is also

Old stuff, don't have the data for it. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 05:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!

[edit]

Collect (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the unheralded work you do...

[edit]
A Tshirt!
I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!
-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Very thoughtful, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


AfD Question for Fairness

[edit]

In your recent edit of Mike Maloney quite of bit of information was deleted that I believe are relavent to demonstrate notability. Without creating an editing battle, I would like to ask if, in the interest of fairness, we should keep the prior relevant information? My thinking is that this way, people who read it will see the whole article and be able to comment more fully as to whether it is promotional and lacks notability, that is, that this article deserves to be improved rather than simply deleted. As it stands, so much has been removed that it would be difficult for any editor to read it and think that it is notable. Thoughts? El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

[edit]
Betacommand asked me on IRC to post this for him. Legoktm (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know keeping up the maintenance of the SBL talk page can be difficult so I wrote a archive script several years ago, I just adapted it for web use: tools:~betacommand/cgi-bin/sbl_archive.py cheers, have fun. Beta 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. Will give it run. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Tangiers_International

[edit]

Hello, I did a WP search on this topic, and noticed that you were involved in a thread on the COI noticeboard regarding this article. So I wanted to bring the AfD to your attention. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Games

[edit]

I see you've went through all of IP (197.1.169.163)'s edits at the Mediterranean Games articles and reverted his link to the full results (example: [35]). Is there a particular reason why? I actually thought they were quite helpful, and needed even. Yazan (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more carefully through the reverts, you seem to have also restored erroneous data that was fixed by the IP here. Yazan (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additions such as these on that scale is considered WP:LINKSPAMming. Asside from trigering the abuse filter, adding .pdf's (requires external applications) is against external links policy, see WP:ELNO#8. I've fixed the erroneous error. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I think that's quite harsh though; according to the same guideline you quoted, rich media is allowed in cases deemed appropriate. This one certainly qualifies as such. These are the official results for the games, they are hosted at the official website of the International Committee of Mediterranean Games (not some random website). Spamming hardly applies here, I'm afraid. Would you object to my restoring them? Yazan (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps as a citation to verify content, because just adding them back to the external links section conflict with WP:NOTREPOSITORY. However do as you feel best. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a decent compromise, I'll add them as a citation for the contents of the tables. Many thanks. Yazan (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a wikiproject that would be interested in collaborating in possibly including it into an existing stats/subject type of template..--Hu12 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean? I've looked into the Olympics articles, and they seem to be doing it by hand. I've added the fil as a citation in the 1987 Mediterranean Games article, if you want to take a look. I think this should be acceptable, no? Yazan (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. Sorry, wasn't clear. what I ment..If there is a way to include it, lets say Template:Mediterranean_Games. That way it will always be in an appropriate article, and can be easily managed. This will prevent runaway spamming such as what happened today, and allow for greater oversight by you or others. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried embedding the citation in the template but it went horribly wrong. In addition, I couldn't find any other place where said technique was used. Thanks anyway! Yazan (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shivnarayanpur,mathurapur

[edit]

Can you explain why this article was deleted under G1. I suppose G1 doesn't include poor writing and grammatical mistakes. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible.
  • "Shivnarayanpur in two half parts one is shivnarayanpur and one is Mathurapur. In mathurapur many peoples are rich some peoples are those poor and shivnarayanpur is also not in down position this is also in equal position."
--Hu12 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am expecting a reply or action there. I guess User:Bwilkins didn't comment further, as you took over the discussion. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiproject Spam

[edit]

Recent events have pointed me in this direction. I think I will become active in this project, is there anything that I should know, going into it? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear, Sue! We could certainly use someone with your experience over there. The primer is on the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Here are some of relevant policies and Guidelines that may be helpful in this area:
Wikipedia also has a Blacklist for external links, for the widespread/excessive abuse and User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList for those problematic spammers that may not be bad enough for the Blacklist. There is also a Special:AbuseFilter/80 which detects possible Link spamming. If you need anything, let me know. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Whitman Archive

[edit]

The information added from the Walt Whitman Archive may have seemed like spam or COI, but it was already agreed upon as worthy additions, per Talk:Walt Whitman. Blocking (see User talk:Whitman Archive) seems inappropriate and, certainly, that editor is receiving mixed messages. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:COI because all the IP's adding the links originate from there. Repeatedly adding links only, is WP:LINKSPAMMING and User:Whitman Archive violates our Username policy.--Hu12 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm able to revert all those reversions? My user name does not violate policy, I'm not affiliated with the Whitman Archive, and my editing history will show that I've done more than just add links. It's still a shame because this is a bit biting for someone who already was able to get support for their actions. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: conflict of interest policy strongly discourages, but does not ban outright. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKFARM. While some external links may be permitted by the External link guidelines, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to be included. Continued spamming will result in having their websites blacklisted.--Hu12 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

[edit]

Betacommand asked me on IRC to post this for him Legoktm (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know keeping up the maintenance of the SWL talk page can be difficult so I wrote a archive script several years ago, I just adapted it for web use: tools:~betacommand/cgi-bin/swl_archive.py cheers, have fun. Beta 01:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

TechScrutiny(Ad/spam not intended)

[edit]

Hello there, I would like to let you know that baseless advertising was NOT intended by adding a couple links as part of articles as proper, legitimate information was also given.Kindly look into the matter and understand the fact! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayushrocks6 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam?

[edit]

I don't think we can call the Starostin links spam.[36] He is a fairly well-known linguist, after all. Though I'm not sure if the link should go on each article, or only on the family article. Perhaps a topic for discussion at WP:Wikiproject languages. — kwami (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, however it is mass WP:LINKSPAMMING and violates WP:NOTREPOSITORY--Hu12 (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The link provides information on each language it is linked to, and the information is separated out for each language (which should counter the accusation of WP:LINKSPAM). There are things I don't like about it, like the notation system (not IPA), but there is definitely nothing wrong with having this Swadesh information for each language on each language's page, and this is what the link provides. Or we would have to remvove all links to WALS, Ethnologue, or other similar information sources. Please undo all your revert edits on the languages where you did them. Landroving Linguist (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linkspamming is defined not so much by the content of the link... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. Repeatedly adding links (40 on ru.wikipedia & 53 on en.wikipedia) is linkspamming, nor is Wikipedia a WP:LINKFARM for those links. --Hu12 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the user is tooting his own horn, and we may not like this. But, let's face it, the information provided is genuinely useful and improves the article, especially for smaller languages where not much else information of substance has been provided so far. Good information provided with questionable motives is still good information, and I really believe you are doing Wikipedia a disfavor by removing it. Landroving Linguist (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's 606 of those links already scattered about on wikipedia, perhaps its time to get with Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages and develop some sort of consensus for this, maybe using it in a proper format or template may add value to the Wikipedia. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinhdoanh20x

[edit]

THANK YOU for taking care of User:Kinhdoanh20x... I undid one of his edits and was trying to figure out how to report him but by the time I did you had already blocked him. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the spam. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tv.com ELN

[edit]

Hi, Hu. I'm contacting you because you commented at the Tv.com TFD, which I decided to withdraw for the moment. I subsequently made a report about Tv.com at WP:ELN. Please feel free to comment at the new discussion: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Tv.com. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking

[edit]

Hi,

Could you take a look at a GLAM project that I'm working on and let me know whether we're likely to run into any problems?

The project page is at Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory. Smarthistory is the art arm of the Khan Academy. Both are completely non-profit, giving away video lectures or (for the art) informed discussions on academic matters, totally free on the internet. No ads anywhere on their site. I don't know of anything anywhere that is closer to Wikipedia in goals (providing free knowledge to everybody), but the means are a bit different - video rather than text, experts rather than everybody, and CC-BY-NC-SA rather than CC-BY-SA.

The project is overseen by GLAM. We're very clear that there will be no COI editing in articles by the 2 Smarthistory employees involved, they'll only edit the project page, or completely unrelated pages (i.e. non-art). The basic set-up is that we have an article on an artwork, and they have a 5-10 minute video on the same artwork, giving interpretation and expert opinion - something that is quite important in art, but often hard to otherwise document. So we link to the video, either in external links or (and you might advise on using this) the Template:External media.

It looks pretty straightforward to me - but I want to be clear at the start. If it works as I expect there could be 300+ links, so I'm sure you can see why some folks might be skeptical. I've been reading every article and watching every video and it looks to me like the best match is usually the external media template, but individual articles should be judged individually.

Any suggestions or help appreciated.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work in organizing this. Stick to the template you created, External links sections get pruned far to often. Your template has better integration, longevity and is better optimized for readers. Consider this; Since the content at Smarthistory at Khan Academy is Creative Common Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license why not consider uploading videos Wikipedia:Videos. The only roadblock to uploading videos is the 100 MB limit. The additions may trigger filter Special:AbuseFilter/80, someones bound to say something but don't worry if they do. This is right way to do it. Let me know when you plan to start, or if there is anything i can help with. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. One big question: can we upload the video to Commons (or Wikipedia) with the NC license? I had thought that this would be the way to go, except for the NC license, to stay as far away as possible from possible rule violations. That said, there are some problems with uploading the video beyond the extensive labor:e.g. it's just one click to the external site with it's choices on video size, extra text, etc., the 100MB limit, and possible problems with ogg conversion.
As far as help - just let us know if you see us doing something wrong. Maybe you could insert a link or two - teaching by example is always the best way!
We're already starting slowly - in order to get feedback - but suppose that we'll gear up after Christmas.
Thanks again.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think uploading to either would be fine. The content at smarthistory.khanacademy.org is all "Creative Common Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license"... all that is required is an "Attribution", which we would want to do anyway. I don't see any issues but those that deal primarily with images and videos may see something we're missing. --Hu12 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph on OER Paris Declaration deleted

[edit]

Hi, I work at UNESCO and we tried to add to the OER pagea section about the 2012 Paris Declaration but you deleted it. Is it possible to know the reason of the deletion and if we could repost it. Best, Hdj

20:56, 18 December 2012‎ Hu12(talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,779 bytes) (-4,945)‎ . .(rvt unesco WP:CITESPAM) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.192.9 (talk)

You should not be editing pages your connected with. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote UNESCO. This is not allowed. Your contributions to wikipedia under 193.242.192.9 consist mainly of adding links and promoting UNESCO and is considered WP:CITESPAM. Additionally Wikipedias External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you work for UNESCO.
A few established Wikipedia policies;
Self promotion is never appropriate, particularly when it there is a conflict of interest as it violates Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates).--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company Description

[edit]

Hi, Please check my response at the Berlkeley Design Automation talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bda_webmaster#Berkeley_Design_Automation Thanks, mickt77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickt77 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about edit to Stantec page

[edit]

Hi there:

I work for Stantec and recently edited our page to include up-to-date information on Stantec's rankings. You recently removed all those edits and I'm wondering why. We had rankings on this page for quite a long time and so I'm wondering why they were never removed before. I would like to at least include a few rankings - so please let me know what I can do under Wikipedia's Policy.

Cbara (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be editing pages your connected with. You have a Conflict of interest. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Stantec. This is not allowed. Your contributions to wikipedia under your account consists of editing excusively on behalf Stantec. there has been a long history of Promotion by Stantec Inc. on Wikipedia. A few established Wikipedia policies;
Self promotion is never appropriate, particularly when it there is a conflict of interest as it violates Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates).--Hu12 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]


Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas to you also Sue!--Hu12 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

[edit]
Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Season's tidings!

[edit]
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Parsimony

[edit]

Hi. I think that the case of fr:Parsimony is not obvious enough for speedy-deletion. I suggest that you use the normal AfD procedure if you think that this article should be deleted (fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer). I can help you if you want, in this case just tell me if you want to provide a more detailed rationale for the deletion. Orlodrim (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 Ouestion

[edit]

Hi! Can you remove army-guide.com from Blacklist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by General1962 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Hu12 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

academia.edu

[edit]

Hi Hu12 -- I had reverted your edit because I checked the links you had cut in the photovoltaics article and they were open access readable versions of peer-reviewed articles that were already referenced - it seemed legit to me but I am new here so leave it up to you. --Smithyour (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly the link does not seem to have been added to vwerify article content. Additionally it appears there has been no peer review or oversight (see WP:RS) and contents are self-published and Origional research. These are not allowed. --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same thing? What I meant to do was put back in the free link to the Energy Policy article, which was peer-reviewed and is available here for $20. The academia.edu article is a pre-print posted by the authors. The abstracts are the same and I assume most of the other material. Shouldn't we be striving to include as much open-access content as references as possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithyour (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on User talk:95.166.166.16

[edit]

Hey, I see that you for some reason found my completely legitimate edit "disruptive" and started making all kinds of accusations that I am a sock puppet of coinproject or something. I am really offended by your actions. I am trying to add information to this website, and then I come back on it and see I have been warned and accused of all kinds of things. Sometimes I am too lazy to log in, and I'll make a single minor edit just from my IP address. What the heck is the problem in that? Why do I need to receive my "first and final warning" for breaking some imaginary rule just because I add information? I think you should think about the way you are policing people's edits. Thank you for reading. Bobber0001 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There has been a persistent issues with the sites owner using wikipedia to promote his site. We are tracking additions of these links, and from what you said your not him and have added it in good faith. I've courtesy blanked your IP page, however this does not mean the links to Coinproject are appropriate on Wikipedia. Multiple issues;
"...anyone can contribute to improving the site...is funded by donations and banner advertisements...CoinProject was designed so that a virtually unlimited number of volunteers can share the work and contribute by submitting, approving or verifying coins as well maintaining their own personal sites and numismatic blogs." ---coinproject.com/about-us.php
It fails several of Wikipedia's core content policies, specifically; ” Questionable_sources” and ”Self-published sources. Additionally, coinproject.com fails Wikipedia's External links policy #1,#2,#4 and #13 respectivly. More importantly, it has been discovered that some of coinproject.com's inages have been simply harvested from other sites and linking to that site has potential copyvio implications per (Linking to copyrighted works). Please use sources other than Coinproject.com in the future. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorensen

[edit]

I'm a little concerned with the speed with which you are reverting these edits. There is a COI, and some of your reverts are definitely appropriate. Are you taking care that every revert is warranted? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthonyhcole, I'm not being indiscriminate with these, however not all his additions have "Sorensen OE" credited and are somewhat hidden, unless you actually follow the WP:CITESPAM externally. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've left a note on his talk page pointing him to WP:COI and inviting him to discuss it with me if he has a problem. He is citing himself and citing people who cite him. So, if he approaches me I'll assess any deleted content against WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:MEDRS. etc. and involve others from WT:MED to see if any of it is appropriate. Carry on. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I left him a COI warning as well. If I can help, let me know. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Would you consider deleting your message on his talk page, though? I don't think it says anything that my message, or the guideline, don't say, and it accuses him of self-promotion, which I don't think can be taken as a given, since when he cites his own work it is quite novel work, and it is just as likely his motivation is simply to keep us up to date. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove my message, however it is still self promotion... intentional or otherwise. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dude. I'll let you know if he contacts me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dear Hu12, I think the paragraph you edited for me is good and concise. But I still think that my link is closest to the main idea of the added paragraph than your link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuantran2k (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC Magazine is a better source and meets Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dog breed articles

[edit]

Hi Hu12,

I hope you don't mind me asking you but I came across a comment you made on the Talk:American Mastiff article about spam links - although it was a few years ago! A handful of us who are particularly interested in dog breed articles have been trying to work out what we should or shouldn't do about external links and/or references to some doggy sites and we appear to be going around in circles. We have queried some on the reliable sources noticeboard without a response, so I'm hoping you might be able to give us some help or point me in the right direction as to where best to ask.

I believe dogbreedinfo.com [37] is a no-no as I had used it a while ago and it was promptly taken out? dog-gonnit.com [38] is a WP:SPS? But what about Continental Kennel Club [39]? Or dogster.com [40]?

I do appreciate that it probably isn't going to be a cut and dried situation but as you have the expertise in this kind of thing, I have landed on your talk page . I also take out External links to breeders personal websites, which I hope is correct? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of content, not links. External links, unless they are an "official" website of a subject are essentially detrimental to this goal, they lead the reader away, to content that is controlled by others. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. dogster.com is essentialy a Social blog community for pet owners and continentalkennelclub.com is just one of many Kennel Club's that exist, neither seem to add any encyclopedic value. Clubs, social networks, blogs and user generated content are links to be avoided. Sure, the internet is full of good and interesting material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content.--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you, helps clarify it for me and it's very much appreciated! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prince Royal Jinan

[edit]

Dear, Wiki administrators.

I was quite angry because you guys blocked my legitimate article on Grand Prince Jinan. After all, this is quite personal because he is my (figuratively speaking) grandfather and Sejong the great is our ancestor’s baby brother. So, I was angry cause you were challenging me.

My article is posted and legitimately posted. My other agents are stop working for your sake. Unblock my website. It is pretty legitimate website that you shouldn’t tinker with, or you can come to South Korea to deal with me.

Lee, Jyong Chul.
Founder and CEO
The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party
(22nd in line House of Grand Prince Royal Jinan)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpotDays (talk • contribs) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FORA.tv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Affairs Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bird sound recordings

[edit]

There is a discussion about external links at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_sounds, which you might be interested in. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind...

[edit]

I went ahead and fixed that for you.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never noticed that before. Thanks :)--Hu12 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Open IPTV Forum

[edit]
Hello, Hu12. You have new messages at Tikiwont's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related to that issue with the members list: would it be useful to create a category and list the companies in that? I doubt, but I'm not sure.. mabdul 09:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If equivalent categories exist, Why not?--Hu12 (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of PVR software packages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hauppauge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of SurgiScope?

[edit]

Dear Hu12:

I noticed that you deleted the page SurgiScope. It is not clear that this was an unambiguous violation of copyright. First, it appears the same author Rperro88, may have been the author of the passage in question at both wiki sites. Second, because they probably come from the same author, it is unclear which article came first. The date stamp for the http: //rsp.inf.elte.hu/mediawiki/index.php/SurgiScope is 16 January 2013, at 08:10. Third, there was non-copyvio prose on the SurgiScope page--why blank the whole article? Thanks for looking into this, Mark viking (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it, Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) From what I can see at the site rsp.inf.elte.hu - that content was created 14:33, 31 October 2012, the Jan 16th date was just the most recent edit which added a ref. So that content definitely came first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hu12, for responding so quickly. I'm no fan of copyright violations, so I'll try to rewrite the prose so potential copyright violation isn't an issue anymore. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I tagged it with "copyvio" before seeing your comment here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I removed the copyvio prose and rewrote it. I left the references as is. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a rewrite, however it doesn't seem notable when doing a cursory search on google news.--Hu12 (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Google News, but there are three peer reviewed papers and a book devoted to the topic in the references. It was prodded recently and I deprodded after adding the references. Feel free to bring it up at AfD if you think that there still isn't enough notability. Cheers, Mark viking (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, I'm the author! Why have you canceled the articles? I'm the author of both the pages (wikipedia and rsp portal), what's the problem, maybe I'm wrong in using the link as reference. have I to use it as external link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rperro88 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

My conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to spread the documentation of concerts and festivals around the USA. InhaleTime.com is a journalism website. There is no monetary value coming from the website, anyone can contribute and it is full of press releases. Most of the site is first hand accounts of concerts and festivals and we have a dictionary of live photos and reviews of festivals, art, concerts and songs. . There is no advertisements on this website; proper, legitimate information is the base of this website as press releases are a major factor. By adding a first hand experience of Bannaroo to Wiki, there is no other alterative to a more legitimate account of actions. You have removed links to valuable first hand information that was collected by a journalist that has a neutral stance.

Please state your reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X13i0x (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, InhaleTime.com is really no different than linking to a blog or personal website and fails Wikipedia's specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Being that "anyone can contribute", it has limited or no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published or Origional research. Lastly, Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote or "spread" InhaleTime.com links around Wikipedia. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete of Content

[edit]

I contributed quality, relevant content to the page Anti-Money Laundering. Prior to the addition of my content, the page had three sections containing low quality content, none of which was cited. My addition actually added valuable information to the page. Moreover, the website I retrieved this information from was created by an actual anti-money laundering professional who is also a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist by ACAMS. I respectfully ask that you reverse your decision. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sno0909 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Your contribution was to add your website, "antimoneylaunderingjobs.com'" (created 01-Jan-2013), to the article by masquerading it as a reference, followed by adding it to another articles external links section. Your site is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedia's specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site. Thank you --Hu12 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm a little confused. As I said before, prior to what I added, the entire Anti-Money Laundering page was essentially filled with poorly written and incorrect information. The word "account" was abbreviated a/c. Seriously? How is that acceptable? I don't know, but it somehow is according to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I go in and correct the lazy abbreviations and add factual, relevant content that will actually help people; but that gets deleted for spam because I linked back to my own website (which contains the exact same information as I posted). According to Wikipedia: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Ok...I am an established expert and I have been published by reliable third-party publications. But there is no real way for you to know this about me, so you just delete it and don't think twice. I've been using Wikipedia since its inception and have even donated to the foundation. You will take my money, but you won't bother to take a minute of your time to contact me about my credentials. Instead, you will let any Tom, Dick, or Harry write the Anti-Money Laundering page with whatever garbage they feel like putting out there. That is the problem with Wikipedia. People, such as myself, take time out of there day to add quality content to the site (content that makes Wikipedia as a whole better), but we aren't even allowed to get a link back for the effort. It's not like my website is some affiliate marketing wormhole money maker. It's a legitimate site solely focused on the topic of anti-money laundering.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sno0909 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 January 2013‎
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own work, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, Nobody cares about your credentials and why "antimoneylaunderingjobs.com'" (created 01-Jan-2013) fails Wikipedia's specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. My talk page is not the Wikipedia complaints department, nor does any donation to Wikipedia confer a license to promote yourself or; "get a link back for the effort". I am a volunteer on Wikipedia, however, unlike you, I'm not here for self-promotion. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people like yourself who seek to exploit the site.--Hu12 (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For just being a volunteer, your attitude is quite pompous, and your assumption of me is way off base. I'm not here for self-promotion. I went to the page and saw what a disgrace it was. Not one referenced source was listed...not one. I added quality content and referenced my own site because that is where the information was derived from. I didn't know that wasn't allowed at the time, and I apologize for that. What I don't understand is why the entire entry was deleted? Again, it was relevant content. You should have deleted the link, not the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sno0909 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a very self-aggrandizing view of your contribution to the page. The "valuable information", "quality content" and "content that makes Wikipedia as a whole better" that you added, was simply a list of business's cut and pasted directly from your site, along with a malformed URL which gave a DNS sever error. It neither fixed any "actual content issues" inherent within that page, nor did adding a broken link to your site improve it. This is not what expert quality, relevant content looks like. In reality it was irrelevant, low quality content added to promote "antimoneylaunderingjobs.com'" and had little encyclopedic value.--Hu12 (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking User:Dracony - your thoughts?

[edit]

Hi Hu12. I'm currently giving some though to letting this user back, but I'd like to get your input before making a decision. At present, I'm considering an unblock with the following provisos:

  • An immediate change in username (which he's already agreed to)
  • A prohibition on adding links to any websites with which he is affiliated.
  • A similar prohibition on creating articles on websites with which he is affilated in mainspace (but with the provision that such articles can be submitted via AFC).

I'd appreciate your thoughts - in your opinion, are the above restrictions too harsh? too lenient? or would you rather not see him editing again at all? Look forward to hearing your view. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(also, FYI I've unblocked another of your blockees, User:EQ AP Archive, after reviewing his appeal on UTRS - our agreed conditions are on his talkpage, if you're interested. Won't consider it wheel-warring if you choose to replace the block. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Yunshui. Thanks for all the admin work you do here! Do what you think is right, however he isn't here to help build our encyclopedia. Hes here for one reason, his own interests;see spam case. The small amount of edits he's done in the last 4-5 years (29) shows he only comes here to promote himself and his sites then leaves....not sure that's going to change....he's had many years to show some good faith, he hasn't. Lastly, his unblock Request reason: "at the request of an editor". This is hardly a convincing reason to unblock and quite frankly insulting that an unblock is being considered.--Hu12 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You sounded very wise just then... Agreed, having re-reviewed his edits and the spam case, there's no benefit to be gained from unblocking. I'll decline accordingly. (Incidentally, I'm sorry if you felt insulted by the consideration of an unblock for such a weak appeal; I was basing it on multiple statements on that talkpage, not just the unblock template itself). Yunshui 雲‍水 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oh no...It should have read its an "insulting unblock request to be considered"... or something along those lines. I clearly worded it wrong, wasn't directed at you, my bad..sorry..:O. Thanks for reviewing it.. --Hu12 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I take your meaning now. That's a relief; I was worried I'd ticked you off. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Edit or Accidental double clear?

[edit]

Hi Hu12

I spotted you removed a section on Cashback Websites for "examples", initially thought you did this by mistake as the content had been duplicated and have reverted your change but looking at it, might have been a genuine edit? Just wanted to double check Rickb (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was intentional as examples are indirectly related, unencyclopedic, unnecessary and don't help build the subject. I see you have done little editing outside the topic TopCashBack‎. Please See public relations, and marketing and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the edits were during article creation - the article was submitted through review process and as the pages which link to the article are often vandalised/spammed I have attempted to help keep them clean, I do not have a conflict of interests, I wasn't aware that I had to edit multiple articles to avoid this Rickb (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would indicate a Conflict of interest; topcashback.co.uk/ref/rickb --Hu12 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of topcashback although that isn't my account (rickb is pretty popular it's why I add the suffix 110 usually) I am also a member of quidco quidco.com/user/1389092/ However i have not attempted to put my referral link in any article so don't have anything to gain at all. But as this has become an issue and I would prefer all my hard work not to be undone I will no longer maintain the article or the section Rickb (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Review Intelligence

[edit]

Regarding your decline of removing Movie Review Intelligence, can you highlight what in WP:ELNO prevents this link? We have included external links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic with little complaint, so I do not think this is grounds for declining. In addition, MRI can also be used as a reference (like RT and MC also are), but being blacklisted prevents the website from being used at all. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 January 2013 (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 a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic exists in articles doesn't prove that Movie Review Intelligence should also exist. Movie Review Intelligence fails #9 as it aggregates reviews, so there is no reason to link to a 3rd party website when we can link to the original for the review. Sure, the internet is full of interesting sites that find clever ways to using other peoples hard work and content, but Wikipedia is not a directory to those sites.--Hu12 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am pointing out that Movie Review Intelligence is just like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, both of which have consensus to use as either references or external links. In addition, WP:ELNO #9 does not apply to any of these websites; each website has a staff that gathers and lists reviews. We can discuss the professionalism of the staff, but the websites fit none of the criteria under #9. If you disagree with this, I would like another assessment of this blacklisted item. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your added comments, the website can still be referenced on its own for its aggregate score. For example, it gives Broken City a score of 47%. This kind of thing is done with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic too. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material". I don't think this site meets those guidelines either.--Hu12 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The website was originally blacklisted due to the founder soliciting refspam across film articles. As I mentioned in my request, the website is recognized here with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Even if you disagree with the reliability, surely you can see that there is an argument for it. The website was not blacklisted for not being reliable, so we should not retroactively assign that rationale. Can you please let me know where I can request another assessment of my request? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether its "recognized" or not, its irrelevant and neither a trump card for its removal nor carte blanche for the sock spamming. You yourself told Dagrossla (talk · contribs) (David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence);
"I cannot expect Movie Review Intelligence to occupy the same ranks as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in film articles." -- Erik
You can request it on the whitelist, however, the inclusion requirements of the External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines are quite clear - as such many links do not belong here, nor is Wikipedia obligated to host them.--Hu12 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my initial request? I wrote, "I was fine with the blacklisting at the time, but I think it has built credibility since then." That means my position has changed since then. The article about all three websites is part of my consideration. I am familiar with all the policies and guidelines, especially as they pertain to film. Would you be open to a RfC or a DRN posting? Erik (talk | contribs) 04:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I Googled a little further, and this and this reflects that the Associated Press reports the Movie Review Intelligence score with the other two websites' scores. I really do think there is a case for it not to be on the blacklist. Believe me, I have combated my share of linkspam and refspam, but I think this website should at this point be at least available for potential inclusion. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, feel free to request it on the whitelist.--Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am I able to request the full URL to be added to the whitelist? Or is it only for specific web pages from the website? I'm not clear on the difference between removing it from the blacklist and adding it to the whitelist. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

overzealous edit?

[edit]

Surely this removes much more than just the source you are following up? For example you deleted a direct quote of Aristotle. I do not have time to look closely but perhaps this source is being added as footnotes, but that does not mean it really is the real source of everything in that section of the Wikipedia article? Can you please review your edit(s)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Its a combination of 3 different sockpuppets (see editsummary) in roughly four grouped WP:CITESPAM edits; [41] + [42] + [43] + [44] = my edit. This is apart of a very large, long term and widespread sockpupet campaign populate en-mass, Flyvbjerg citations, books and related.--Hu12 (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I need to look at it more closely but at first sight it worries me that what this person has done is attached bogus footnotes to ok looking paragraphs. Difficult to track. :( --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's more of the Flyvbjerg spamming that's been going on for years. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Tunnel and Flyvbjerg

[edit]

Regarding this edit to Channel Tunnel. I understand you are doing some important work fixing spam but in this case I added all of the Flyvbjerg links. The Flyvbjerg links are referencing the article and thus are essential.--Commander Keane (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited them back in for you, Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist utilising the reason line for the history

[edit]

It would be really useful if you would be able to utilise the reason appropriately when (add|remov)ing domains (to|from} the blacklist. Even it simply lists the domain name it would add some value for those who quickly wish to review the edit history. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where this would be useful. I can't count the times I've had to dig through the history (because it wasn't logged) just to find who added what.. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why deny my request

[edit]

I asked for LookChem to be removed from the Spam Blacklist. I have two questions:

a) Why was LookChem blacklisted?
b) Why did you deny my request?

<noscript>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.123.99 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC) </noscript>1YlGC6dsynvm (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was blocked due to mass multi project spamming. Its a commercial chemical sales site or as you stated "buyer site"(which fails our external links policy). Your request stated only that these links would be "excellent additions". The request was denied due to your being blocked for "(Disruptive editing: block evasion and repeated introduction of errors using multiple IPs/accounts". 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. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted link as a citation, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered.--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am on a different account now. Hopefully I can be trusted and a request can be accepted. 1YlGC6dsynvm (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

...for sorting out the massive Flyvbjerg-related citespam problem. I saw an oddly promotional article, but I didn't see the whole picture. I realise a lot of work went into untangling the extent of what had happened. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User removed name from spam report

[edit]

I am not sure whether it was exactly appropriate to put up an identifying name for the person who you believed was spamming, especially in line with our project guidance, well not initiallu. The person has removed it in situ, though it showed in each edit's history, which I have hidden, though left the original edits in place unchanged. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tintri

[edit]

The whole purpose of creating a user account seems to be related to the creating Tintri Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dcf1959

I have an impression Wiki cannot be used as a marketing vehicle. FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APS (Full Auto) (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telerik Test Studio

[edit]

An anon removed the prod from Telerik Test Studio. I don't know if you want to continue to an XfD or not, but the anon's reasons are on the talk page of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take it to AfD. --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shankysupercool

[edit]

I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Shankysupercool which concerns a sockpuppet investigation you recently participated in. Your participation there is welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References removed from Praxis intervention

[edit]

Your recent edit to Praxis intervention removed two references from the article, with the summary, WP:CITESPAM. The references did not match the criteria listed at the linked content guideline for what constitutes citation spam. Would you please clarify your edits? --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those citations were not added to verify content, rather was a part of a massive multi-year cite spam campaign by Flyvbjerg using a large number of sock accounts and anon IP's in order to populate numerous wikipedia articles with content related to Bent Flyvbjerg. This particular instance of Citespamming on "Praxis intervention", was added by IP 81.159.9.70 in this edit. You'll also note the IP was also used on another article in the same manor, and matches known IP ranges used by this spammer. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I did not know that the references were added as part of a citation spam campaign, but I understand now. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed my inforgraphic

[edit]

u removed my infographic - i posted on my talk page and u said u monitored it but i have not heard back from u as to why u removed it or what i can do so u do not remove it in the future as i have lots of knowledge and useful infographics to accompany often great wikipedia text definitions - Look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmcfarlane (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon McFarlane, founder of Forex Useful. Re-read what I posted on your talk page. Also read the edit summary explaining its removal. See "public relations, and marketing". Wikipedia is not a place to promote Forex Useful. This equally applies to low value and promotional "Forex Useful inforgraphics". thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I posted a couple links to the resiprocate open source project which were removed by you. Can you explain why? Is it because I wasn't using my wikipedia account? The following is what I had added to the "List of SIP software" page:

  • [http: //www.resiprocate.org/About_Repro Repro] - A highly efficient SIP Proxy based on the [http: //www.resiprocate.org resiprocate] stack

Sgodin (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the note at the top of the page before you added your link?--Hu12 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

download managers and YouTube downloaders

[edit]

Hi, I updated Comparison_of_YouTube_downloaders with information about Streaming Video Downloader and 3D support column, and Comparison_of_download_managers with Streaming Video Downloader. You undid these changes stating not notability as a reason. First of all what does 3D support column have to do with notability? Secondly, this is a popular downloader that should at least be included on YouTube Downloaders page (maybe not download managers page). I have provided a link to an independent review, and can provide more links. The page itself means that all popular downloaders should be listed, including the other free YouTube Downloader not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.188.246 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the note at the top of the page before you added your non-article entry?--Hu12 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It did not appear in the section - I was not editing the whole page. Now that I have read it, may I ask 1) what is NetTransport doing in Comparison_of_download_managers? There is no wiki page for it! 2) Should I then just create a wiki page for Streaming Video Downloader albeit as small as say Download_Express? Oh and 3) Why did you remove 3D support column? This is a useful feature and information that has nothing to do with notability guidelines!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.161.102 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 February 2013 Oh, and btw 3) Why are there different standards for different lists of software? List_of_interactive_geometry_software Does not seem to have similar restrictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.164.232 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback

[edit]

Probably won't be, which is a shame. I saw your post there and thought you should know. He's blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't even noticed that..oops.. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy.went.wandy

[edit]

I gave Andy.went.wandy (talk · contribs) a adv4 warning after reviewing all his subsequent edits since you have him an adv3. He's continuing. Would you like to review the situation again, or should we get others involved? --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at ANI here since it's continuing still. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply I have been tied up with other matters. Seems Andy understands at this point, however if it does continue well take the next appropriate steps. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who commented at the AfD, a merge discussion has been initiated.

[edit]

As someone who participated in the AfD for Ethnic penalty you may be interested in joining the merge discussion which was indicated as a next possible step by the closer: Talk:Discrimination#Merge_Ethnic_Penalty.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of project-management software

[edit]

Hey,
Can you take a look at the talk page of Comparison of project-management software and give me any suggestions. I saw that you are an active editor on the page so thought to take your opinion. Looking forward to your response. Thanks!!
--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Meta

[edit]

Please see the message on your talk page there, and reply there. πr2 (t • c) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you gonna block me?

[edit]

ye, muu, fuck you bitch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.170.79 (talk • contribs)

Hi Hu12. I've warned the IP editor for this, but have no objections if you wish to step in with a block; your call. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its an IP associated with a previous spam case(See WikiProject Spam report), and it appears in addition to this disruption/NPA/harrasment, they have resumed adding links. I've blacklisted their site. --Hu12 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist edit summaries

[edit]

Any chance you can use edit summaries when adding sites to the spam blacklist? It makes it significantly easier to figure out what was added to the blacklist in each edit when summaries are used. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where that can be useful and forget to do it sometimes, however full log details on who added what and when is availiable here and url's can be specifically searched here. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TINC

[edit]

"Trusted and high-volume editors"? Really? Can it be true? After all these years, I have finally been inducted into the ranks of the Cabal? So why wasn't I invited to the initiation ceremony? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still awaiting my invite. I think there's a cabal against ceremony. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Whats the problem with my link sto ooopid, Its the only tornadoes Canadian database. This have been reported to Wikipedia, its really unprofessional. Yes its my website but this external link is very better than the other one.

Its appear that you have some fun to remove link from other users...... Everyone who have trouble with user Hu12, you have the right to report him Tropicalix (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Shopping Cart Software

[edit]

Hi, I just looked at [[45]] in order to show somebody a useful shopping cart comparison matrix. I don't understand why you crippled a formerly useful article by deleting (at or around 1st of November 2012) most of the information others have added previously. If you help to improve/update information, that's of course welcome. But just deleting most of the information is ihmo not what an editor should do. Currently the article's matrix is junk, because you decided to hide most of the available information to people searching for a shopping cart solution which fits their requirements.

Greetings

Joerg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.208.159.51 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long term Dracony self promotion and Spamming

[edit]

Per your note Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Jan 1#Long term Dracony self promotion and Spamming, I thought you might be interested that PHPixie has popped up as an article. Werieth (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


and: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2013#survivingmesothelioma.com and related spam is back Paul Kraus and [46] Werieth (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Stage-gate model

[edit]

Can you please explain the rationale for deleting the Stage-gate model article? Stage-gate is an industry norm for talking about the processes involved in new product development, project management, software development, etc. etc. I acknowledge that sometimes this is referred to as phase-gate, and we do have an article on that; however this is confused, because systems or products are often delivered in phases, which is then synonymous with release, i.e. progressively building up increments of the final solution. The stage (or phase) referred to in stage-gate just means a sub-division of the work, such as research, analysis, design, build, test, and launch. There are huge amounts of published information about stage-gate. A quick search on Google Books and News shows 15,000 books and 10 articles on stage-gate, as opposed to 5,250 books and 1 article on phase-gate (excluding Wikipedia itself). I am happy to create the page and make the case, however I wanted to raise it with you first, as you were involved in deleting the previous article. Thanks. Davidjcmorris  Talk  23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its at Phase–gate model Werieth (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to take part in a survey

[edit]

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hu12. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
[edit]

Hello Hu12. According MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2012 you updated MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist by adding \bkbcregistrations\.in\b, a scam website which had been spammed into articles here. Could I ask you to look at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Kaun Banega Crorepati‎ spam links? This lists several more sites which I believe are operated by the same scammers, and which have also been spammed here. The report has been outstanding since June, though the abuse is continuing. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need for an Outsider's view

[edit]

Hi Hu12, in December 2012, you removed self-promotional weblinks by Fahl5 (Steffen Fahl) from every wikipedia project where you found them. It provoked some disturbance, esp. because Fahl5 didn't want to understand (and still does not) that his activities to spread links to his own website represent a conflict of interest. You know the drill, and now this: The other day Fahl5 rises from the dead after nearly ten months of silence. This was triggered by the question of the German admin Lustiger Seth who asked whether Fahl5's web domains could be removed from the spam black list. The resulting discussion is very long.

The reason why I write this posting is that you were mentioned several times. Your work was mostly disregarded (esp. by Fahl 5) by calling it "link deletion without regarding the content", "mass deletion", "by HU12 caused actual disturbance", "Hu12's totally irrational spam hysteria", "Hu12's uninhibited ravage", "Hu12's insanity", "Hu12's arbitrary measurements" and so forth. I spare you further vilifications (you could ask google, if you must know). I'm under the impression that Fahl5's personal attacks stem from the expectation that you as an English-speaking person wouldn't notice them.

You're initiative to erase those self-promotional links was the right thing. Since the discussion over there in the German wikipedia could use an outsider's view, it would be nice if you could spare the time to add a statement. Myth-busting, if you will. -- Gut informiert (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12/Archive8&oldid=1151046809"