User talk:Triplestop/Archive 4

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Desiphral

Jackpot. MuZemike 01:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Most paid editing is pretty innocuous however when the edits involve spam and sockpuppetry it becomes really hard to assume good faith. Triplestop x3 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't just paid editing, it was outright spam. I finished cleaning up everything I could find yesterday. Deleted about 10 articles, mass reverted a few more and a ton of removing spam links. Good catch. Brandon (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The user's behavior when approached about this problem made me more suspicious. Triplestop x3 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss where he was banned? Brandon (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#Proposed_ban_for_Elance_user_Tayzen The ban received unanimous support but was never actually enforced then. Triplestop x3 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thanks. Brandon (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good thing that he actually got blocked now. But do you have any idea what we can do about the fact that Desphiral has his own Wikipedia? I'm serious. He is the only administrator on the Vlax Romani wikipedia.

This is where the federalism of Wikipedia makes it hard to do anything. I brought it up on Meta, got the attention of a few MetaWikiGnomes who said "not my job and I don't care". For completeness, I brought it up on rmy:, where I was of course reverted as a vandal by Dear Leader Desiphral. I'd probably be banned if I brought it up again.

Not that it's clear what I'd even do... I found Wikipedia's second-most-active Vlax Romani speaker and asked him if he would be interested in stepping up as admin if I found a way to remove Desiphral, but never got a response to my odd request.

rspεεr (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed on the stewards mailing list. See m:WM:SPAM#tunisia.com. Mike Lifeguard says it is likely the community of rmywiki will be alerted and decide the fate of Desiphral. Personally I too am weary of a spammer having his own Wiki. Triplestop x3 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Except rmywiki has no community, so that might get a bit difficult. Anyway, I'll leave it up to the stewards. rspεεr (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply per e-mail

Per your e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, where you said "Please also direct replies to my talk page", I am replying here to let you know that your e-mail has been received. If you could confirm that it was indeed you that sent that e-mail, that would be good, as asking for replies to be sent via a talk page is highly unusual. Is there a reason you want replies on your talk page and not by e-mail? Carcharoth (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, it was indeed me who sent the email. I do not check my email very often hence the request, and because of the issue of transparency. Also, in regard to what I said in the email, I would like the arbcom to clarify what can be done about the incident as a whole, if possibe. Sorry if I am doing anything wrong, I am not familiar with the arbitration process. Thank you for your reply, Triplestop x3 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to investigation

Thanks for raising an alarm and letting me know about Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#User:New_seeker. It is archived now, so I have no intention of answering there. But since you have asked, I am new here but I have found a lot of articles worthy only speedy deletion. Hence, I have decided to stick around to learn the AfD criteria and processes. I vote only when I have a clear opinion. Let me know if you have any problem with it. New seeker (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE

Some people come here unaware that Wikipedia has minimum notability requirements and other policies for new articles. Please do not give them a level 3 or 4 warning on their very first edit, unless you suspect sockpuppetry. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding long strings of nonsense text does not indicate good faith to me. Triplestop x3 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Then a level 2 warning (no good faith assumed, but no bad faith either) is appropriate. User:MissAceBaby added such a string in an article about herself, perhaps thinking she was at a site similar to MySpace. As for attack pages, the threat of blocking is mentioned in {{subst:attack}}, and so there is no need for a separate warning. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

user:ignition IM

This is a user who was submitting a strategic planning app, and indicating an interest (if you read closely) in helping wikipedia. Not suitable for a speedy, at least; and the current method of deleting userpages is surprisingly unfriendly -- it really doesn't offer a way for new editors to get their feet wet and encourages them to leave. +sj+ 06:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Userspace abuse is a big issue, at times up to 20% of user pages are spam. Users like that constitute a spam username violation. In those cases the username is a bigger problem than the content. If the user wants to try to write that page then he will have to do so under a new name. The wording on the spamusername template explains it nicely. Triplestop x3 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD MFD/User:Nalxhal

I thought I'd check with others. if your curious.--Hu12 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: AIV report

Hi there! Thanks for your recent AIV report. I've blocked the user, but I was wondering if you'd consider reporting inappropriate usernames to WP:UAA instead. That's for when they're not actively vandalizing, of course; in this case, all is well, considering the user was actively vandalizing. If you have any question, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The user's edits are a worse problem than the username, the username only adds to the user's vandalizing intent. Triplestop x3 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, but you reported it as a username violation. I figured I'd just make sure you know what the appropriate venue is. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I merely stated the username as further evidence. Triplestop x3 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Glad everything's well, then :) Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Triplestop. I removed

• Mntm2009 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Triplestop x3 18:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

that because I think that despite the fact that the username is actually a COI violation, it doesn't violate WP:U. Consider taking it to COIn. ceranthor 00:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-contriversial in COI

I am reverting the changes you made in the COI. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the policy as it was before was the result of a lot of discussion (see the talk page). We intend to review the policy in a couple of months, or sooner if there is abuse. But it seems like a good idea to keep it stable for a while. If you think it should be changed sooner, please discuss it on the talk page. I might agree with you. Keith Henson (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I very much support the changes that you made to the article, Triplestop. If nothing else they made it a lot more understandable. I also think that the firmer stance is appropriate. Maybe it should be discussed on the talk page of the guideline before the changes are implemented, but I would argue that they are correct. -- Atama頭 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't changing the actual substance of the provision, just clarifying policies that need to be followed anyway. Triplestop x3 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also would support this change, so perhaps it should be brought up at the talk page. ThemFromSpace 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you were not changing the substance. And I further agree that it will probably need to be clarified. But I think we should wait at least a few weeks if not a couple of months to see what is needed. If this COI exception gets abused then clarification will be needed sooner, or even the whole policy reverted. So far I am not aware of any abuse.

If you want to propose changes on the talk page, please do. For important policy like COI exceptions, I think discussion on the talk pages before making changes is a good idea. Looking back into the original discussion, it was you who came up with where to insert this policy change. Thanks very much. Keith Henson (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Triplestop's change and think it was silly to revert it. The meaning of the section didn't change at all; Triplestop was simply applying WP:WOTTA. Confusing terminology has no place in a policy aimed at newbies. rspεεr (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI, the whole series of problems between myself and libs started here, though at the time I was not aware that all of the users mentioned in the WQA were actually the same person: [1] ... it really doesn't matter to me what you think of my motivations, etc, - but this happened WAY before my article (one of over 100 I've created - and one of several Libs nominated for deletion at the same time, using sock puppets and canvassing - but you don't have to believe me about this) was nominated - or maybe even created. You don't have to believe me about any of the details following, about who I am, whether I had a COI on that page, etc, but I did want you to know that this feud started long before any of the COI or OUTING or whatnot. You don't even need to respond to this.. originally I thought you believed everything libs said, but after a few other things you've said, I thought you might want to know this.. and yes, I am retiring .. slowly, apparently. Luminifer (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor review archived

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 23:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Complex Converter - External Link on Measurements and Dimensional Analysis pages

Please reverse your removal of the Complex Converter [2] external link from the Measurements and Dimensional_Analysis pages. (See [[3]] and [[4]].) I developed this algorithm to perform unit conversions that most converter algorithms are incapable of handling. This link gives users free access to a very useful tool for educational, research and professional work. I believe that you should examine it before deleting it because you are removing a unique function from the Wikipedia that helps users. MikeVanVoorhis (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this fails our external link guideline. Please also our policy on conflicts of interest. Triplestop x3 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you just CSD a userpage?

That's userspace, even though it's promotional; he just asked me on my talk page on how to create an article "like Vita Coco has". I'm afraid this may get carried away. But anyway, it's inappropriate userpage content at most, isn't it? ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 00:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, deleted. It actually got deleted. Gets me to wondering. ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its an advertisement for a user with a spam username. These are quite common, its a violation of both advertising and username policies. Tons of these are gotten rid of at wp:UAA daily. Triplestop x3 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I know he's got a spam username, I just wasn't sure about tagging the page when you could've just reported him to WP:UAA. ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CrossHouses Adminship request

I would be grateful if you could reverse the early closure of my RfA as i am fully aware of the low chance however i would like my RfA to last longer than five seconds and would appreciate more than just one Admins input. CrossHouses (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit recreated as Human disguise

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!

Thanks for your recent edits!! - You helped the world today in some way... maybe a little bit, but wrong is doing nothing at all. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happyabout

I have protected his page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Carly Pope

Just curious why the link to carly-pope.com was removed? The Carly Pope article has basically been built off of that site (the career section was taken word for word even).--Csylcox (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

I edited my own Talk page to add a sense of humor. Is that really a crime? I just wanted to lighten up the mood; a warning was not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You re-factored another user's message to make it look like they are saying something negative. This is considered a personal attack. Furthermore, changing others' comments is a big no-no. Triplestop x3 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that that would be considred a personal attack. my pardon is extended to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please be able to delete your warning for me? Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Context Mishap

"my intentions were wrong, but what I did was perfectly acceptable"? So you admit you were acting in bad faith? How can we be convinced that you will not repeat this malicious behavior? Triplestop x3 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like a second chance to prove it. I think you may have read my message out of context. I was replying to the previous administrator's message to me. To put everything back in context, let me explain exactly what happened. Pleasantville sent me a nasty message which could have been stated in a kinder fashion. Since I did not like this, it was my pleasure to correct her poorly investigated research. This was mistaken as me advocating for some domain that I don't own or care about it. Had she made those incorrect comments on another page, I would have just as gladly corrected them there. In my responses to Pleasantville, I only stated that her research was not accurate, and I corrected it. Nothing else. Was I doing it because she sent me a nasty message? Yes. But that doesn't mean she didn't need to be corrected. I believe this community is about accurate information, and I was contributing. Please let me know what I need to do here? I don't see a point in creating a new account. I like my user name Cwiker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.213.112 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will alert an admin to your message. Triplestop x3 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.213.112 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's Request for Adminship

Thanks, Triplestop, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Time

Are you in a hurry? ~ R.T.G 02:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you an accused party?

Just wondering why you choose this section.--Dojarca (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Woops, I moved it to the right place. Thanks, Triplestop x3 02:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AmateurEditor

I am now pretty sure that AmateurEditor is in fact Ultramarine, a user who edited Wikipedia since early 2005 and abandoned Wikipedia just 4 days before AmateurEditor appeared first. Ultramarine was also havily involved in The Black Book of Communism disputes and related topics.--Dojarca (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very hard to assume good faith given whats happened. Thanks for catching this. At any rate it is very likely he is a sock of someone, I am sure Brandon will take care of this. Triplestop x3 02:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KPS4Parents

I am curious as to why Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KPS4Parents was deleted rapidly under a CSD. I am fully aware that the user was in violation of WP:UN but a well respected user advocated keep only a minute or two before you deleted the page. I never had a chance to view the page but I am considering WP:DRV, but it would be nice to know what was on the page before I commence such a thing. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete the page, look at the second comment on the MFD Triplestop x3 02:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that I confused you with a closing administrator, my fault. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought the same thing, really--that's what you get with this kind of closure at this speed. No one cared for Collect's comments? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:November 2009

thank you. i really forgot about that. it's been along time i haven't edit pages. thank you.Mfa fariz (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On Matthew J. Thompson

Hi Triplestop, just letting you know that I declined your request for speedy deletion A7 of Matthew J. Thompson. It seems that the article establishes his nobility as the discoverer of the largest known Woodall number. You're more than welcome, of course, to nominate the article for deletion through AfD. Just thought I'd let you know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Woops, my mistake, I though it was a hoax. Thanks, Triplestop x3 04:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I saw you posted a redirect and included in the edit summary that it was an alternate account already, but just wanted to make sure you were aware of these guidelines. You may want to add that template to the account. Thanks.  7  04:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am aware of the guidelines. I am using that account for testing and am unlikely to use it for editing. Triplestop x3 04:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You crack me up

Stop trying to PROD articles that have already been deleted and then leaving edit summaries of: ????

j/k! Thanks for the good work. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing DRV

When you close it, please leave the title linked (i.e., use {{subst:drt|Title}} instead of {{subst:drt|Title}}). Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hong Kong International Printing and Packaging Fair

I added reliable sources to the references section of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hong Kong International Printing and Packaging Fair, a newspaper article and two articles from printing industry magazines. Could you please take another look at the article? – Eastmain (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, feel free to move it. No objections from me. Triplestop x3 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re. Alert

Hi there, Triplestop. Thank you for alerting me about this ANI [5] claim. With my Thanksgiving plans of spending some offline time with family and friends, I really hadn't been online at all for some days now – until earlier today, and wasn't aware of what latest stunt was being pulled. Looks like some sort of "filibustering" attack against you has been going on in full swing over there.

In all honesty, such crap might fly with some on Wikipedia (we do our best to assume good faith, right?), but it's really obscene that some people would take the liberty to publicly spout some crap like that on an ANI forum with no apparent reason other than a seemingly baseless personal whim (I wouldn't have minded so much if there were proof, but that...)

Having looked at the thread over at ANI, it's now archived and seems to have gone away on its own. If it's still something that I can do something about – or if I can somehow be of any help, though, please let me know. Again, apologies for not answering sooner.

Hope everything else has gone well during my absence.

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your concern, I just thought you should be aware. I'm hoping that when such attacks occur that it will be obvious to everyone else what the real motivation is. As such, this is problem is best left ignored. Triplestop x3 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re. Regarding EE battleground

Hey Triplestop, thank you for you comments over at my talk page. I think you are a tremendously perceptive editor, and I believe that your comments are spot on. In some past instances of editing articles I have indeed overreacted to the EEML editors and their tendentious conduct, which, for the sake of openness, integrity, and disclosure, is something that I should and do admit to. In no instances did I participate in behind-closed-doors backstabbing of my opponents or set up a secret mailing list, as members of the EEML did. In various cases I indeed took part in what the Wiki refers to "edit warring" – but doing so was a reaction to the EEML, who collectivelly owned – or attempted to WP:OWN – virtually all of the controversial articles where such "edit warring" occured. When one would run out of reverts, another would come in; when one ran out of pseudo-arguments to preserve their point of view on talk pages, disregarding the notion of compromise, another showed up. As a result, normal editing became a pain: you cannot really use normal WP:DR procedures, as there is no such thing, for instance, as asking for a third opinion when you are already confronted by a brigade of three-five EEML teammates at any locus of dispute.

As I've already written before, I chose the username I have now in an attempt to dissuade brigadiers from making the "nationalist" ad hominems about who I am (I am not a nationalist). It's funny to be attacked as a "Russian nationalist" or a "Neo-Stalinist" (this is how Radeksz described me on various occasions) because one doesn't share the views of the nationalist Eastern European mailing list. (I think I'll change it after ArbCom, as I already have an old username there.) And when called out on their own POV-pushing, the EEMLers still play the same card: denying everything, turning discussions at any appropriate enforcemtn venues into TL:DR train-wrecks, and justify their own behavior by accusations against whoever they've found to disagree with them on whatever they happen to perceive as "important" from their POV (as evidenced in the recent AN attack against you by Biophys).

For somebody who has not faced the continuous abuse and harrassment from EEML, I think you've been very perceptive and bring a much-needed fresh perspective to this Eastern European area. I think it's extremely important for you to keep on going as you have: it is inded important that you not take any side of a dispute between editors in the Eastern European topic space reflexively, but examine the issues and presentation for yourself; IMHO you have demonstrated tremendous capacity for doing that. I am doing my best to do as well as any editor, and I would warmly welcome any criticism wherever and whenever you might find it merited. And the advice you've left is genuinely appreciated.

Best regards, Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: User:Fezmar9/Prophaniti sockpuppetry

Creating this subpage was suggested by an admin on my talk page User talk:Fezmar9#SPI, LTA, etc.. After reviewing WP:LTA, it seemed that Prophaniti's edits were not nearly as severe as some of these other banned users. His edits were minor and easily reverted, and less severe when compared to creating deliberate hoax articles or consensus fraud as I noticed on WP:LTA. His abuse is also more recent, only for about the last four or five months, where as the others had been going on for years. It seemed like the subpage route was better, and that if his disruptive edits continued or became more harmful, he could be added to to LTA. If you wanted to look into what I have written so far and tell me if I am overlooking the severity of the situation, that would be greatly appreciated. LTA is a totally new thing to me that I had never heard of until two weeks ago, so I want to make sure I am going about this correctly. Thanks! Fezmar9 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The community gave feedback on a couple of policy pages at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost and WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost, and there will be another one in Monday's Signpost that we're putting together at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit this month or last month at that talk page. If you have questions, feel free to ask at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report or my talk page. The best guide to what the community is expecting from the surveys is to follow the links above to see what they've already done; we haven't had any complaints. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML

Sorry - I think my level of shock and disgust from following the trainwreck got too high. I haven't looked at the ANI case linked, so have no view/opinion/anything about linking it to EEML. I certainly wasn't trying to call you out in any way in my post. I've been in some rather large, long-running fights in other places, and just see this one never, ever ending. It feels like both sides just collect "evidence" and continually bring it out (see the one usually trotted out against AN). And yup - I'm absolutely an idealist! I'd love to see more people with short-term memories for some things! Again, my apologies if you took anything from my post as directed towards you in any way. Ravensfire (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And agree with your last comment there, completely. Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens

You're a promotional username reporting machine! I like it. - Vianello (Talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. I haven't been really active there lately. Triplestop x3 22:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

save the day!

Thank you!! I knew I wasnt going crazy! A8UDI 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Frill-necked Lizard

Thank you for the review, we understand now what makes the article sub-par and we will correct the mistakes and renominate. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk • contribs) 04:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Hey, I was in the process of recreating a reporting page for WP:ABUSE and thought that I should link to some page that was dedicated to removing spam. I saw the Spam wikiproject was dealing with such issues, but it appears that the project is inactive? Would you consider the project inactive and suggest that I provide a link to AIV instead? The page I'm working on is User:Netalarm/Abuse form, which would later be presented to everyone else for approval. Thanks for your input. Netalarmhappy holidays! 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing spam that needs immediate attention to block the user should go AIV. The WPSPAM page is for tracking people who spam. Triplestop x3 03:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What's done with the tracking information? At this point, I've already placed obvious ongoing spam to be deferred to AIV, but I'm not sure what type of reports should be directed to the spam project. Netalarmhappy holidays! 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone is caught spamming, then the WPSPAM reports help track down previous instances of the spam to help determine if blacklisting and such is needed. Triplestop x3 18:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)