User talk:Hu12/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome! Hello, Hu12/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Kf4bdy 04:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Help with BrianZ

BrianZ keeps deleting links on the atkins diet page.

He says he is editing them but following has been discovered:

BrianZ was a frustrated member of the site that he was removing BrianZ started a competitive site and tried to list it but was asked not to spam his site at wiki. BrianZ then started removing sites like his from the atkins diet section ... yet leaving regular spam there at times.

He has been doing this daily. I am not sure who to contact about a content dispute. I read the external links section and it seems like the page is allowed in the external links section. The page was added by an another person. It is not like I added it but just dont think it should be removed.


I have asked him to clarify why he is doing this but he doesnt. I dont think this issue can be resolved between us.

What would be the next steps?

Can you ban brianz or at least ask him to stop until this can be resolved.

From WP:EL Links normally to avoid: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article)". The official site seems to be listed, and the page being posted contains adsense. However, you are encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Hu12 05:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Hu12 this is not a site that I added. It was added by others. Is the issue here about adsense? I can remove the adsense if that helps things. It is not a commercial site just use adsense to try to help pay for the server costs.

The issue was that this site was included by others then continuously removed by brainz. can you please email me to discuss.



Thanks Hu12 for explaining the policy to him. It has been explained many times, hopefully he'll get now.

Here's the truth:

note by Tommac2 --- he said you werent able to add your own site.

  • I asked why other support forums were allowed and Graeml apologized for not realizing they were the same types of sites as mine.
  • I became an active member of Wiki and edited, wikified, wrote many pages including policing spam links on the Atkins article.
  • I then wrote in the Atkins article discussion asking for inclusion of support forum links like mine and the above users. The only response I've seen is the above user trying to make me look like I'm just deleting his and that I want mine included. (he's got a personal issue with me and I've tried to squash it with email, but it's obviously gone too far.)

--- who has answered it. No response because the other sites are not in violation. If your site is non commercial and was not added by you and is relevant then it can be added. If you are trying to add your own site so you can spam then it is not allowed. This is so clear brian ... please stop deleting the links.


  • The user above, Tommac2, continued posting links to his site after Graeml and many others temp blocked his IP after several warnings.

--- I was never warned or emailed or told that this site broke any external link rules. My links were actually never removed by anyone other than you. the reason I was banned was because you posted that I was a spammer and a vandal. This is 100% not true. All I am trying to do is to re-add the link to the site that you unjustfully removed.



  • I have the Atkins article on my watchlist so I delete them when they appear, so he thinks I have a grudge.

--- Just stop deleting them.

  • This problem is resolved however. He created a seperate page for links, so we'll see how it goes.

Thanks for deleting his link on the South Beach Diet article. I actually left it there so he would see that I'm not the only one deleting his spam. BrianZ 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on External Links and Problems with BrianZ

Hu12,

The site was added by others in the atkins community and is a non commercial site.

Can you clearly state why this site is in violation of the external links rules?

Also until we get this resolved can you ask BrianZ to stop removing the relative links from External Links section?

Regards, Tom

This seems to be an issue on both parts, and really should be resolved on you respective forums in a discussion area privately and in a civil manor and not on wikipedia. Remember, linking to either of your sites in NOT an objective at Wikipedia. Creating a page for links will be viewed as a link farm, and is a form of spamming.

note forums...However..

  • neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included.

All the best Hu12 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy Cow, Thank you Hu12 for putting it in plain English. Something I have failed to do. Hopefully, Tom will be back and read this but I doubt it. Anyway, thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia consistent. Note: I haven't posted my site (or had anyone else post it :) ) Since Graeml cleared things up for me. I apologize for the unneccessary clutter on your talk page. BrianZ 05:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Some link...

I assumed there was no reason for the link's removal - hence my reverting its removal. See User_talk:70.223.161.24 :) --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please read the policies EinsteinEdits

Hey buddy I'm not quite sure what your issue is but leave me and my page alone. I'm here to help, I fewel wikipedia is an amazing research tool, far better than google ever will be. I'm here to add to it, and contribute good links and watch out for bad ones that's my biggest pet peeve. I DO NOT need you babysitting or letting your head get all big with the power your keyboard provides you. I've done nothing wrong you need to worry about yourself, and all the millions of junk spammers on this site, as I am doing the same --Edited By a Professor of Life 00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • What Wikipedia is not.... Policies here apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. please stop spamming, read External links policy and Spam policy before you continue to add inapropriate links. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism, If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked. Posing as an administrator is also against wiki's policy. your "contributions" tell it all.[1] Hu12 01:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hu12 on what grounds did you reverse that great info page on tmx elmo? I find the site very informative, it has zero ads, or links or anything for sale --Edited By a Professor of Life 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the case the first NINE times it was spammed on the tmx elmo page, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] it appears you have removed the ads from the site that you own or maintain, spamming is not tolerated. Please read What Wikipedia is not and the External links policy. the Link was obviously inserted to promote a site which is termed external link spamming. It does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article already has. Hu12 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


THE site is not mine nor have I ever seen it with ads on it. Who's to say the blog and video sites aren't yours? I think your nazi type approach to things is nothing short of abuse and disgusting. The site is a straight up information site and does not appear to be commercial in any way shape or form, there for being an informational site it is NOT link SPAM but you ARE in violation of abuse of power. You need to relax with your nazi crap nobody would gain a thing from that site being up there personally. it's a ncie little well done site with zero out going links, or ads. I suggest you put it back --Edited By a Professor of Life 04:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    • To help you understand some of Wikipedia policies, I'll post them here.

how not to be a spammer -- that is, how to mention a Web site, product, business, or other resource without appearing to the Wikipedia community that you are trying to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion.

  1. Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed.
  2. Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)
  3. Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar. There are certain stylistic behaviors that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching:
    • Adding a link to the top of an unordered list.
    • Adding a link that's snazzier than any of the others.
    • Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product.
    • Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button.
  4. If your site is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant.
  1. If your site is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant.

Links normally to be avoided -If the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.
  2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
  4. Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.
  5. Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
  6. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
  7. Foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites.
  8. Bookstore sites; instead, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.
  10. Links to search engine results.
  11. Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)
  12. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines.

Eleven times is considered spam.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] All of your edits have either been adding external links, or complaining when those links are removed. Please contribute to the encyclopedia instead of trying to use it to advertise external sites. Hu12 07:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

      • looks like you're here to promote after all, here's some info. MountainLife posted "Would like to field some offers for these, TMX-ELMO.NET, TMX-ELMO.ORG,TMXELMO.ORG, I think it's a pretty potent package" now the site youve been spamming, www.tmx-elmo.org, was Created On:19-Sep-2006, and does not appear in the search engines. wonder how you found it. This is curious because your other sites are in MountainLife's signature also has site links to www.cocaine-drink.com in which you posted ( [23] under IP 205.188.116.133, [24] under IP 76.182.42.121,[25], [26], [27], [28]), www.dieselsmoke.com which you posted ([29], [30] under IP 64.12.117.10 and [31]. www.nascarspace.com which you posted here([32], [33] under IP 205.188.117.5 and here [34] under IP 76.182.42.121 and www.nitrousdirect.com which you posted here ( [35],[36]). ALL are Links you have posted to promote sites... STOP spamming wikipedia. you are here for promotional purposes, and won't last long. Hu12 17:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] new complaint

We have been watching a few sections closely and noted your rather aggressive edits without cause or explanation based on your own opinions not fact. While we are avid wiki supporters we do not condone these actions and are watching you. Nor will we tolerate these actions, your last few edits appear borderline abusive. If this keeps up we will make your time here very frustrating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.8 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 October 2006.

  • Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. These links are removed. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations on why your link was removed. Comments can be found on the Edit summary with details on why the link was removed. If you feel your link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. We are watching Spam closely, and will not tolerate the abuse of Wikipedia Hu12 07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] test5

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you on this, but just a quick question. I noticed that you were posting {{test5}} on some anon user talk pages recently, but I didn't think that you are an admin (I don't see you blocking anyone in the log). I just wanted to make sure that you were doing this on purpose, vs. just using the wrong number accidentally. Also, in general, you may want to consifder "subst"ing any wartning templates that you do use, otherwise a bot ends up coming along to do it later. I hope that you don't mind me dropping in with this. Regards. --After Midnight 0001 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to get back so late, was a little preoccupied at the time with vandalism attacks. thanks for dropping in with this, error on my part.Hu12 19:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am I correct that this page is an advertisement

I just recently began editing on wikipedia and I made some contributions to the forex and retail forex websites. I am writing to you becuase you deleted parts of my website, and i have questions about another website and I did not know who to ask. this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxo_Bank seems to me to be an advertisement. I deleted most of the it, but left the parts about the name of the company and what it does. In response, the creator of that article put the original article back and wrote on my user page that I have an adjenda. Am i correct that that page is an advertisement? Thanks let me know what I should do becuase I want to help clean up the image of retail forex.

Drew

Drewwiki 04:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AdSense

Hi. You deleted a link to a page saying it had Google's AdSense. People keep reverting and you and other people keep taking it down. I do not understand. What's the problem if an otherwise acceptable web page has Google AdSense? Even the wiki for it says it adds value. Is there a wiki policy you can point me to regarding this? Thank you. --SafeLibraries 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see from above you quote this: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." Now that seems to be the point of contention.

But I do not see a few AdSense ads on the link you keep removing as satisfying either one of the three criteria listed in the quoted statement. Yes, I know there are nasty pages filled with AdSense ads, but the page link you removed is not like that. It seems you have interpreted that quotation to mean any page having AdSense ads can never be linked on Wikipedia. Given the popularity of AdSense, that would be plain silly. So please be very specific when answering my original question. Thank you. I'm just trying to understand. --SafeLibraries 02:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hu12, please respond to the "AdSense" section above. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your changing your user name from SafeLibraries.org. User:SafeLibraries.org's inappropriate username (again). Also adsense sites are not allowed External links policy. thanks. Hu12 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was required to change my name. It was no trick.
Your saying AdSense ads are not allowed is your belief but it is not wiki policy. Carefully consider what I am about to say as it proves you are wrong to continually take down the SafeLibraries.org link that, surprisingly to me, other people keep putting back up after you repeatedly take it down.
"Links intended to promote a site, especially if that site's primary purpose is to advertise or sell products or services, or if the site requires payment to view the relevant content. This is colloquially known as external link spamming." Is that the policy to which you refer to claim AdSense pages are excluded? SafeLibraries.org's "primary purpose" is to educate people about the ALA and how it may be endangering children. It is NOT "to advertise or sell products or services." It is NOT "external link spamming."
Further, the policy includes something you must acknowledge: "Except where noted, this list does not override the list of what should be linked. For example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked even if it contains factually inaccurate material." In the case of SafeLibraries.org, the subject of the article is organizations that oppose the ALA. Many organizations are listed, and SafeLibraries.org is properly included as one. Therefore, even if the first paragraph I discussed DID apply, and it does not, then the second paragraph explicitly states SafeLibraries.org SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED even if the first paragraph applied, and it doesn't anyway.
Now per policy I cannot add it back. But I will await the others to add it back as they have. And if you take it down again at that time, I will take action to request the assistance of others to advise you of the policies that I just explained, unless you can point out specific wiki policy specifying no AdSense pages -- there is none I see. I do not expect to have to do this because I think my specifically pointing out specific policy specifying how you are mistaken will suffice to prevent your further taking down the link in this particular circumstance. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • first, I am pleased with the fact you have taken the time to read and understand the policies. Thank You. However, considering the fact that your adsense publisher account is #5899657962655411, I would believe, knowing the previous stated (policies), you would consider from this point on.. not using Wikipedia as a source of advertising revenue. Hu12 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. I am not using Wikipedia as a source of ad revenue. My user page does not link to my site. My site's ads are incidental to the main reason for the page. Everyone has a few incidental ads here and there and wiki policy specfies such pages are not to be excluded under the circumstances as I've explained above. What do you mean? Please specify why/where wiki policy says ad sense pages are disallowed, specifically ad sense pages.
I do feel, at this time, and I see others feel similarly, that you are acting outside wiki policy. To be clear, I see your repeated revision is based solely on the Ad Sence ads, and not on the content of the underlying page. In other words, I do not feel you are singling me out, rather you are singling out an AdSense page. But wiki policy does not demand the removal of all AdSense pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Any response forthcoming? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't engage in strawman arguments, however, excessive linking to websites per the Spam policy is unacceptable. Generaly adsense pages are notorious for low origional content and exist only for revenue traffic. Its evident other editors have felt the same way about the links added previously. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for website promotion. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, contrubute with content not with links. thanks. Hu12 15:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm confused. You say "[i]ts evident other editors have felt the same way about the links added previously" but you completely ignore the people, unrelated to me and actually much to my surprise, who kept re-adding the info you kept removing, specifically asking you (in history) to stop removing the link. You say "[g]eneraly adsense pages are notorious for low origional content and exist only for revenue traffic," but you completely ignore the page's ads are minor window dressing for the serious issue addressed on the page, which issue is the exact reason why the page was added in the first place, and you still have not addressed yourself to the Wikipedia policy that proves you are incorrect on using this reasoning to exclude that link. You said "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for website promotion," but I am not promoting the web site since I am not adding the link back, plus, wiki policy specifically allows for the inclusion of such pages in certain circumstances that the proposed page meets, but you continue to speak to generalities and continue to fail to address the direct issues raised by wiki policy that you are directly ignoring so as to mold wikipedia into your POV of how wikipedia should be doing things. Like your blanket statements here and elsewhere that all AdSense pages are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Who says? Not Wikipedia. Hu12 says. You say "Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, contrubute with content not with links," but you ignore that the links are there to illustrate certain encyclopedic matter, that there are several links there to illustrate the point, and that you removed only the single link you did claiming only AdSense ads violate Wikipedia policy when you are just plain wrong, or at least you still have not addressed why Hu12 policy trumps Wikipedia policy.
Please address yourself directly to the issue of why Hu12 policy trumps Wikipedia's own policy that allows for some AdSense pages. Leave out the link in question. Just answer that. Why does Hu12 policy trump Wikipedia policy? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I won't engage you in strawman arguments, including issues, and edits months old such as this. I understand you have an axe to grind, as you had many Spamdexed links to safelibraries.org removed. Try to understand this problem from Wikipedia's point of view. Articles are being overrun by spam and it takes the effort of many dedicated people to keep the articles clear of advertising. Because of the huge spam problem at Wikipedia, we have had to develop a very strong external links policy. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and your past edits have been discussed ad-nausium previously. Harrasing WikiProject spam members, like myself on talk pages and Re-hashing old and already discussed issues is moot, and unproductive. reference Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SafeLibraries.org. Continued argumentative discussion on your political or personal views about me or other editors is not constructive. Closed. Hu12 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. For the record, complaints people may have had about me was when I was either a newbie or relative newbie. Note, for example, I am not now adding such links. However, equally note you obstinately refuse to address the issue of why Hu12 policy trumps Wikipedia policy. Therefore, you have called into question your own actions and people could justifiable see that you have the "axe to grind" as you refuse to respond why your policies that exceed wikipedia's own policies trump wikipedia's policies in your own mind and in your edits I am questioning.
My politely seeking here, even in a non-pushy, wait-a-month-for-answers manner, as to why you are reverting the edits of others in possible violation of wikipedia policy is not my "soapbox." It's not even anyone's "soapbox."
Your raising the issue of my "soapbox" and the concerns of other editors about my past edits including my newbie edits is merely evidence that you are attempting to minimize my reputation in the minds of readers here because you do not have a legitimate and compelling reason why your policy of no AdSense pages trumps Wikipedia's policy on this issue. In other words, it's easier to use ad hominem argument against me than to argue in favor of your persistent edits that fall outside wikipedia policy.
This is not "continued argumentative discussion on your political or personal views about me or other editors." I have no such views about you and I do not know who you are. And politics has nothing to do with violating wikipedia policy. But I do know you are possibly violating wikipedia policy and I was attempting to determine your reasoning in a very polite fashion. Perhaps you might have swayed me. Yet each time you have carefully avoided the issue by merely restating your conclusion that AsSense pages are always bad, even though Wiki policy does not say that. Then, as I continue to seek a responsive response from you, you conveniently go for ad hominem argument and declare the case "closed."
So I won't be writing here any more, in respect of your "closing" the case, but neither I or anyone fairly reading this section can conclude that you have justified why your policy trumps wikipedia policy. I no longer view you either as a credible editor or as a person willing to discuss matters honestly with others. Your loss, not mine. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/1/User_talk%7EHu12_Archive_8dcb.html"