User talk:Hu12/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contents

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Architecture, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

User:Worldcreator1

You included User:Worldcreator1 in your spam warnings as stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPAM.2Fcommercial website solicitation. As can be seen at the WP:ANI discussion, Worldcreator1 is the one who reported it to WP:ANI in the first place. Are you certain he was adding them and not deleting them? He also has blanking warnings for removing content from Telecommunications Broker. I believe he was trying to remove the content and not add it. Am I missing something? Otherwise, I think you should remove the warning as misplaced. -- JLaTondre 17:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks, Ive replied--Hu12 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Belated congrats

Hello. I just wanted to pass on a belated but enthusiastic congratulations on getting the mop. And I am so, so sorry for missing your RfA. I was on my very first Wikibreak of any duration (two weeks), and I just now realized you got promoted while I was gone. Obviously, I know you will make a great admin, and I would have said so had I been around. All the best, Satori Son 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Seamaster

What cha think about the unblock request down yonder at [1]? Looks like you might want to shorten it at least, but it's your call. —Pilotguy contact ground 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the IP used was blocked 24 hours, I changed the main account to 48 hrs. Would have let it go if there wasn't a block-dodge involved or the talk page vandalism. --Hu12 23:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The spam fighting

I've been away from wiki for ages, but I just wanted to mention that I note the extensive amount of spam finding on the wikiproject spam talk page you've got. Good to see people keeping the spam back, even though I haven't had the time to help out there. Not sure who started it, but I like the use of the adsense ID; that is a great extra correllation on spam sites. Kevin_b_er 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Seas

Hi, I added the redlink to Seas (company) at Seas again as I believe that this loudspeaker manufacturer easily meets WP:CORP. This is not the same organization as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEAS so please discuss before reverting. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and for the distinction between the two. Read elswhere that you plan to take on this article yourself, I Look forward to reading it. --Hu12 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Palin

Hi, what was the reason you reverted Himalaya with Michael Palin to an earlier version? See [2]. The older version looked much better to me. Sorry for the rollback btw, I clicked wrong. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Error on my part, your correct.--Hu12 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so this was it, I missed that. Good call. Garion96 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My first edit made no sense, thanks for letting me know. ;)--Hu12 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Why remove this link? It contains an original review. OK it has ads but they are allowed under the TOS -- and excessive is in the eye of the beholder, and as you are not God so you cannot judge! The TOS may need an objective measure, but until then what gives you the right to make the call? — Pgrieg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

re Torrisholme

The Torrisholme article was just prank nonsense, I actually live there, please read the previous article. ````


Comment from Sam Mishra, MBA (MIT Sloan) =

I saw your comments. I am not adding directly any links to franteractive.net. Others might be doing it. For instance, you are doing a dis-service to readers by deleting the link to my Porter's Five Forces article, which others have agreed is useful, since it extends the Analysis to a Buyer-Supplier Matrix. After all, Buyer and Supplier are two of the main themes / forces in Porter's Five Forces. Now, I suggest you check the discussion page on Porter Five Forces, others have agreed that the link is useful. Since you seem to firm in your idea that the link is spam, I suggest you assuage the concerns of other readers who seem to like the article, and think that it should be there. I think I am somewhat qualified to talk on Porter Five Forces, since I did an MBA from MIT, a top five b-school. The nine-grid buyer-supplier matrix is a useful extension to Porter Five Forces, but removing the link will not deter the propagation of knowledge. I do get requests from other authors who want to reference my article and images in their books and publications. What you are doing is clipping the Porter’s Five Forces Article by the wings... in the name of administration. Please oblige with feedback, and also, please enter the discussion on the discussion page on Porter’s Five Forces….Thanks Sam 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with See WP:COI.--Hu12 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I am not adding links to my articles, but if my readers do it, I am not going to say: don't do it! What I am saying is simple: before deleting the link to my Porter Five Forces article which someone else added whom I don't even know, should you not have read the discussion page of that Wikipedia article, since you are an administrator? Are you not doing a dis-service to Wikipedia readers who are looking to understand Porter Five Forces more completely by deleting useful links? I don't see a conflict of interest here in sharing knowledge, rather it is common interest in Porter Five Forces which prompted someone else to add back the link---I did not add that link back after you warned me sometime back in February that you will blacklist my site. What is your blacklist policy? I see much more powerful businesses' links all over Wikipedia. What are you doing about that? Will appreciate your gut reactions. Sam 08:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the concern of Advertising and conflicts of interest, Blogs are Links normally to be avoided, this has ben mentioned to you by others in the past. Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding the franteractive.net website and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be external link related only. See [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. In the recent days you have taken an agressive posture to WP:CANVASS for this links inclusion. see [25][26][27]. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have content to contribute, contribute that. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article. No need to worry about the blacklist, this currently does not deem that type of action. There are tons of inapropriate links all over Wikipedia, the fact that we haven't gotten around to it, yet, does not mean that we have some obligation to have franteractive.net. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? see Links normally to be avoided Hu12 15:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Links with original content improve wikipedia. Why shouldn't we direct people to other sites? Isn't that what the external link feature is for?— Pgrieg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

This page and protection

Since you are blocking anons, please unprotect this page, to make it easier for those you warn to contact you. Thanks, Prodego talk 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to fractured discussions, Since my warnings are on those pages I reply there. Blocked anons can't discuss any where else but their own talk. I may consider in the near future, however I am not comfortable with that now. thank ou for your consideration.--Hu12 03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hu12 is bossy and narrow-minded

Hu12 says we should discuss before editing the page. But he didn't discuss when he removes a large sum of contents. How funny he is! He uses his own power so he can control the page at his own will. There is a rule which says you should explain before you revert. Improve it not just revert. Did he follow THE RULES? No. The only thing he contributed is to destroy, so I think he should be banned too in this case. I know I am going to be banned too since I have pointed out his evildoing. Ha... ha... # Happyzone See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Brokers — Happyzone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

May want to first read WP:CIV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Statememnts such as Interactive Brokers offers most attractive interest rates in the industry and the sections that were removed did no attempt to report objectively with a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you wish to advertise or solicit the merits of your favorite views.
  2. Advertising. Sections added to Interactive Brokers promoting commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates or account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. This has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not Allow advertising.
Please refrain from repeatedly adding promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --Hu12 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection for my user page

You protected my user page about two weeks ago and I think I'm ready to have my page unprotected. There haven't been many vengeful vandals in the last few days. Gdo01 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done--Hu12 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

321books not a spam or scraper site

321books is not a spam site, it is not a scraper site, as you have accused it of being. It uses Adsense, but so do many sites linked to by Wikipedia. There is no objective measure for excessive advertising, so how can you judge this site to be using excessive advertising? Have you read any of the pages, or found any original text which they have scraped? (You won't, all the pages are themselves original!) Shouldn't the removing of links be down to subject editors? Admins, it seems to me, haven't the time or knowledge to justify link removal, although they can start a discussion. If you suspect a site is a scraper then you should investigate by searching for text, not just guessing. Although I guess by blacklisting 321books you got me to point out the facts to you, which given the demands on your time, is perhaps the way it has to be [sigh]. Anyway, in the cause of justice, could I appeal to you to have 321books taken off the blacklist Pgrieg 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WPSPAM case repost:
321books is a proven MFA, (made for adsense) scrapper site. Quick examples include, this link (321books.co.uk/gutenberg/cousin/front.htm) scrapped from University of Adelaide [28], and an instance where 321books (321books.co.uk/gutenberg/cousin/p578.htm) even scrapped wikipedia content [29]. Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links to 321books, and Campaigning, and Forum shopping for its inclusion on talk pages which is also considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be related only to this site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Hu12 16:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cousin dictionary was generated from Project Gutenberg sources, not Adelaide or wikipedia. I define scraping as illigitimate copying, therefore this was not scraped. Also, this was very much a side project. Anyway, the pages you initially deleted -- Tesco book pages, biographies... are all original. I know that 'cause I created them myself. Note, don't come back and say I scraped the Faraday (or any other) biography, because I know someone else has scraped MY original text. The scraping you accuse me of, in relation to the wikipedia page, must have gone the other way, if at all. I'm prepared to give wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. A wikipedia user may have just have happened to generate the page in a similar way. I take such scraping of my pages as compliments, rather than an invitation to attack. You should be able to find out the original creation date of both pages and that should prove me to be the originator. Note also, I've had college professor's in America linking to some of my biographies (Socrates for instance, if you want to do a link:). If educational institutions, and experts to boot, are happy to link to my pages (adsense or not) why isn't Wikipedia? I have had run ins with Wikipedia admins before, so I decided to only do anything that wikipedia admins might not consider whiter than white under this name in case you guys get really heavy -- if you can ban my URL I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about banning my name. I don't want my main 'contributions' name to be trashed.— Pgrieg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Moved discussion to WPSPAM case, in order to get a consensu view--Hu12 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils

Howdy. Just a note that I've reverted your removal of references on the List of vegetable oils. I appreciate the thought (that classifieds don't count), but the bulkoil.com site actually has some quite informative writeups on many, many oils. If you'd like to replace the references with better ones, please feel free, but the references that are there have gone through a very extensive review process (during the featured list review), so please don't just remove them. Waitak 05:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The small write ups on those pages seem to be sourced from, 3rd parties including wikipedia. All contain extensive ad lists "for sale" which clearly are classified solicitations. Also there is a case of over citing, since each "list" item has its own article, there hardly seems to be a need to cite an external source that is infact content found on wikipedia. I won't list every instance, however it seems strange to need to cite the statements;
  • "Corn oil, a common cooking oil with little odor or taste"
  • "Soybean oil, produced as a byproduct of processing soy meal."
--Hu12 07:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved response to Talk:List of vegetable oils Waitak 08:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stratford

I don't think you meant to put [30] on that page; it also isn't a violation of 3RR, since it was over more than a week. --NE2 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I have way too many open browsers, wrong talk page. Thanks for letting me know. Still think a revision warning is in order in some form, it may not be blockable, but re-adding the same link several times is worth a warning--Hu12 22:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
He has reverted now, so it probably is. --NE2 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Gave a heads up, seems there quite a bit of issue with this users edits, User_talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org, User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare and Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Adding_links_to_organizations_to_articles_about_related_things.--Hu12 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Learn some mannters

See User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare, learn some manners from her way of doing business, then revert your edits along the lines we've agreed to. You have made no attempt to reach consensus. Start.Noroton 23:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure consensus is needed for WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS. I hope no one here is "doing business", if they are let me know and I'll be happy to take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Feel free to review WP:CIV.--Hu12 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain what part of [WP:CANVASS]] applies here, and for that matter, what part of WP:SPAM. Noroton 23:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Citation_Spamming_of_http:.2F.2Fwww.trainweb.org--Hu12 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Dollywood Pin Trading

Hi - I'm a bit confused. Why did you vote for speedy delete on this article and then remove the speedy tag that was already there? EliminatorJR Talk 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The speedy tag was added after it was added to Articles for deletion, speedy tag isn't needed as there is a AfD discussion.--Hu12 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request re: Habitual plagiarist

The user Chewygum (talk · contribs) has continued to plagiarize content from other websites despite repeated warnings on his talk page which he quickly deletes. Can something be done to make this user understand that plagiarism isn't a good thing? Most recently, he plagiarized content from the hxxp://www.adroth.ph/ (ADROTH project) for use in the Philippine Reserve Officer Training Corps article --Edward Sandstig 12:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in it, and we actively strive to find and remove any that we find. If you believe Wikipedia is infringing a copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation. --Hu12 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred the Monkey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fred the Monkey. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Captain Wikify Argh! 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I know that you were closing an obvious AFD, and I completely back your decision. But the stupid undeletion procedures dictate that I do this. --Captain Wikify Argh! 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Hi Hu12, you recently deleted the article Rockpools, and I now request for this to be restored. It is a legitimate article relating to a notable company in the UK and it is linked to Hamish Davidson. I am more than happy to modify it to suit the guidelines here - I'm new and maybe got carried away, and would appreciate your help and guidance on how it should be. I tried putting it in a similar format/language style as other similar organisations, but obviously it wasn't to the standard expected. Rather than deleting though, please tell me how it needs to be. Could you please undelete it - it should be part of Wikipedia. Thanks for considering my request. Kaswa 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaswa (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Commented over on your talk Rockpools--Hu12 20:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hu12, you recently deleted Acsys, Inc. and I'd like to request that this page be restored. In March I added 2 articles: 1 for Accountants Inc. and the other for Acsys, Inc. (they are sister companies). Accountants Inc. was taken down because it was written like an advertisement. I realized that Acsys would soon be taken down as well as it was written in a similar fashion. I took down Acsys, Inc. until I was able to write new copy that explains the company but is not an advertisement. I added the new Acsys, Inc. April 4th or 5th. Please let me know if I can explain the situation any further. Thanks. Mbalestieri 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hu12, I just noticed that Accountants Inc. was deleted due to advertising just like Acsys' page. I looked at the other companies under staffing and they all seem to be written in a similar fashion so I'm not quite sure which direction to head in re-writing the Acsys, Inc. and Accountants Inc.'s articles. Can you provide me with some insight? Thank you very much. Mbalestieri 19:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dermatlas mediation

Would you agree to mediation over DermAtlas? (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, or any other dispute resolution mechanism of your choosing.) --Arcadian 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We can take it to WP:WPSPAM if you like, however the policies on WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI are quite clear on this matter. Spamming is about promoting a site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites at all. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links added (such as this case) for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote that site are not appropriate. --Hu12 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I have opened the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#DermAtlas. --Arcadian 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyacinthia

You deleted the article at 03:33, on 20 March because of the template Template:db-r1. However, I have gone through the google cache and discovered an article that existed before. The redirect that may have been tagged was possibly vandalism.

I would like for the page to be undeleted and reverted to it last good state. Please inform me of your decision. Thanks.
--Ng.j 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, seems it was redirected to a non existant page. It has been restored and the redirect removed.--Hu12 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.--Ng.j 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the spam

I had provided some links for free programs for pricing of variance swaps, Credit default swap, etc. assuming that it would help in understanding of the associated topics. (They are also hard to find free) Anyway, my perception was wrong and you are the boss to decide that it was SPAM. I don't want the links back, but I will appreciate if you can please remove/allow me to remove the spam stuff on my talk page. Thanks Swatiquantie 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. However, after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the warnings, is acceptable. This roughly would be about a month, in order to show that behavior has ceased. Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings. I do believe you are sincere in that this situation won't happen again , I may remove them earlier than the month;) --Hu12 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Archived the warnings off your talk page--Hu12 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to that guy on my talk page. I was trying to think of the correct reply to a COI spammer and you did it for me. RJASE1 Talk 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. ;)--Hu12 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are an administrator, and should know that you don't discuss through edit summaries, even if you are right. Contact the user through his talk page (which apparently you didn't) or post a note in the talk page (neither you did). Report him to AIV, or request another administrator to review the user's behavior for disruption, but don just use the rollback button, that is only for real vandalism. And if you think this is really vandalism, just block him.
Reverting each other is the way anonymous and new users use to prove who is right. -- ReyBrujo 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I'm an admin, and also the second largest contributor to that project (next to A.B.). No consensus was reached on the addition to project, its a substantialy change to the page. Note the addition was made to the project page 02:33, 2 April 2007 then proposed 17 minutes After at 02:50, 2 April 2007. My revision was appropriate, and warranted. Substantial changes to the project need consusus, and with this editors previous history as spammer (see WikiProject Spam case), current attempts to disrupt said project per WP:POINT were removed.--Hu12 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, you may have been right, but you could have contacted him on his talk page or in the article talk page. Remember, you are expected to react with a cool head, to discuss and to contact users. He can be a spammer trying to exploit a loophole, but again, if you really thought he was disrupting, you should have blocked him. At this moment, I do not discuss who was right or who was wrong, but instead what you did to stop the ongoing disruption. -- ReyBrujo 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I do appreciate the page protection. I normaly would reserve administrative action as a final step, not against someone who's holding a grudge against a particular project, thats what the revision button is for. --Hu12 04:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cystinuria posting

Hu12, I was late to notice that my contributions have been labeled spam. While i personally do not see these contributions as spam (of course), having read the more narrow outline put forth by the Wikipedia anti-spam group i can see how it would have been taken as such. I go through much pain and effort on my own site(s) to fight spam, and thus take it very seriously and very personally to be accused of the same. To the extent that this label is deserved, i offer my most sincere apology. Please understand, however, that i am NOT adding links to any commercial endeavor, and thus, i do not consider my linking to be advertising. Yes, i am intimately involved with the subject of my links and the topics under which i post. I consider this a good thing for a contributor. The fine line between this and the "self-promotion" that Wikipedia prohibits is, in my opinion, the prospect of personal gain, of which there is none in my instances of linking and posting. In any case, i would ask that my few links remain available unless community discussion finds them out of place or inappropriate, and i would ask that the encyclopedia entry also remain. I am completely aware of Wikipedia's nofollow stance, and assure you that links and entries are made with the goal of networking resources, both for Wikipedia and the more general web network's benefit. (When the topic is such a rare disease, and the organization linked is such a major player in the field, there is no need for link spamming for purposes other than the benefit of the end user.)

Also, as far as the "sockpuppeting" goes, hey, i learned a new word!! I never really liked Banannafish because it is spelled incorrectly (Bananafish, my favorite J.D. Salinger reference was taken!). Thus, i decided to change my name. I didn't realize Wikipedia's sophisticated methods in place for changing a name, and proceeded to "change it" like i have for every other site... by simply registering a new one. And as far as its relation to a website, that is a connection that i believe you have personally made. There was no extension in the name, per Wikipedia rules. Again, intentions were not to promote anything, but rather to link all of my random contributions across the net together, for myself, under 1 neat heading, for which there also happens to be a website by the same name. I would like to be able to keep the name, as i do not see how it breaks any rules, and i find it much better than a misspelled literary reference. But, i'm not attached if you need to do what you need to do. Thoughts? Kind Regards. Randominc

Apreciate the comment. Let me know which name you want to keep, I'll be happy to 86 the other for you ;). Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not. In this case in light of your comments, you learned a new word (LOL) and have read and aparently understand the related policies. I believe it was a simple error. Nothing wrong with editing topics your familiar with, just be carfull of any possible conflicts of interest. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. Adding one or two relavent links at this point should be fine. I would suggest only keeping one name, I appreciate the explination. Let me know which one, and I'll disable the other and remove the warning on the name you choose to keep.--Hu12 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hu12, thanks for the understanding. I would like to keep Randominc over the other name, but if you do think that it is still not appropriate, i will gladly return to Banannafish. It is funny how one can be so experienced with the web and web-base communities, but Wikipedia can still seem so new. I have redefined my concept of spam here, and will familiarize myself with the conflict of interest content. Thank you again. Kind Regards Randominc
Thanks for the reply, archived the comments on your page and disabled Banannafish. Happy editiing--Hu12 19:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to know!

How are you identifying spam socks so fast and efficiently? I'm missing something because I did not catch that pattern in the IRC feed, and it tells me the links they add as well! Really good job! —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I realy should get on IRC, it seems to have an advantage over searching. All I did was use your search sohbet.alemsohbet.net, then dropped the the sub domain, and searched the root site. this shows all the subdomains in the search resuts. Usualy doing that comes up with too many results, but fortunatly this time there were only a few article hits with that domain on them. I have popups so I can preview the diffs, went for the External links edit-summaries in the history and found them. Fortunatly these were so new (thanks to you posting it) the history diffs were near the top, I've had to dig sometimes through a thousand or so edits to find the source spammer. thanks for the compliment.--Hu12 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, and if you need help getting on IRC let me know. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearing the-planets.com links

It's always nice to watch an expert at work - well done! Regards, Mr Stephen 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, a barnstar! Thanks very much, I'll make a space for it on my userpage. Regards, Mr Stephen 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

re: barnstar

You are probably going to want to give User:GeorgeMoney one as well, he did most of the coding. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. thanks again!--Hu12 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Afd clutter cleared

I appreciate your boldness in clearing an Afd of coi spa clutter, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who does! — Athænara ✉ 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting the move, I agree completely with you that the primary policies and guidelines issues should not be obscured by the clutter.--Hu12 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

medicalcomputing.net

"Adsense pub-3271807191893451" So what's that mean? [31] --Ronz 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Its an advertising ID for sites that use "ads by google" or Adsense[32]. Generaly, it can be used to identify related sites when they are spammed. example [33] --Hu12 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
For reference to compare against other sites. Thanks! --Ronz 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of anon

I assume you blocked the anon user who kept blanking my comments, quite inexplicably, I might add. Hate to see these things happen but it seems warranted, I just don't understand some editors, personally I have unwatched the Rule of the Rose page. I entered there as a neutral party, but it seems that page is so far beyond sanity I can no longer deal with it. Thanks for your attention to the matter though. : )IvoShandor 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Asside from this being an ongoing issue, you deserved the respect of response from that user. Apparently some are not civil and never will be. sorry you had this experience. Most anons (IP), are great contributors and are a benifit to wikipedia.--Hu12 07:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This I realize and understand, which is why, after being a bit rude on the Rule of the Rose talk page, (not really, just a little frustrated, you probably saw my last posts there) and being accused of all sorts of malfeasance, such as being grouped together with trolls, see my talk page, I still wanted to see this conflict resolved in a way that would make everybody happy. That's not going to be possible, ah well, and no worries about the experience, I have a thick skin.
It was a good test to see if I could remain mostly civil, which I think I did, heck, I didn't even report what was probably a personal attack on my talk page, as well as threats about being reported for personal attacks (which I didn't committ) on the Rule of the Rose page. In a couple months I plan to try for adminship so this will be a good example to bring up at RfA about how my civility has improved.  : ) thanks again. IvoShandor 08:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, well done!--Hu12 08:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with your block, but is it appropriate for the blocking admin to also be the one who reviews & rejects the request for unblocking? Perhaps a 2nd opinion would be better? Not a dog 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
why wouldent it be? Its not a controversial block. You may have noticed his newly created account, SirShiek (talk · contribs), has edited your comments on Talk:Rule of Rose.--Hu12 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
But the blocking admin certainly isn't in a position to determine if a block is "controversial" - just seems a 2nd opinion would add weight and justification. Not a dog 14:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and as I mentioned at ANI, I'm assuming good faith that that edit was an erroneous cut/paste of the WP:EL code, and not meant to actually modify my comment. Not a dog 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Very possible that is the case, I assumed that also, however the users history has shown considerable evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith is also about intentions, not always about actions, which previously have been inconsistent with good faith.--Hu12 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So a blocked user can create a sock? This doesn't seem right. While I respect everyone assuming good faith here, I have tried with this person and if the user in question is indeed the same user who accused me of trolling, there will be no good faith assumed on my end. IvoShandor 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if the account was made to evade the block, it should probably be blocked as well. My only hesitation to suggest it is that many of us have urged the IP to create an account to alleviate some of the talk page problems, and blocking the subsequent account will likely enrage the user even more. (But our urging was prior to the block, to be sure). Not a dog 14:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Without a doubt the individual is a troll and is deliberately and intentionaly attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, the use of the new account would fall under Forbidden uses of sock puppets, however it has been brought up at ANI, and we'll see what the consensus is on how to handle this new situation.--Hu12 14:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I have already chimed in there. IvoShandor 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

referral recruitment article

re: referral recruitment

I'm not some spammer, I am connected to the company jobtonic.com but I have written for national magazines in the UK and hope to contribute constructively to wikipedia.

this article is one of genuine merit in an area where wikipedia is quite bare (recruitment). I see no issue with it including a list of example referral websites but this was removed just now by you. If a consensus is reached I would like to see this article have links to the three major players - zubka.com, jobneters.com (sic) and jobtonic.com.

a person reading about referral recruitment might reasonably want to see how the process works in real life just as a person reading Social network service might want to visit some sites or a person interested in supermarkets might want to view a list of example supermarkets.

I guess the fundamental problem is that an 'expert in a field' who is by definition a good guy to write an article on his specialist area will often also be employed in that area and as such come under the suspicion of antispam groups :-(

if the consensus is that this article souldn't feature a list of example sites then I'll bow out and continue to constructively contribute -> inchture being an example of one of my other contributions from scratch.

AlasdairBailey 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the post. I don't see anything other than that as an issue with the article. This is an encyclopedia, and we do not promote products and services. being connected to even one of the companies falls into Advertising and conflicts of interest, however the section was removed per Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists, directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to companies, company lists, products, external links, or any other material as well.--Hu12 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

okay, thanks for the assistance, through the few years I've been browsing wikipedia, I've seen numerous pages link to "List of..." with external links so assumed that listing examples of something (with external links where appropriate) was common practice. I guess the "List of..." type articles are also frowned upon as they're directories?

AlasdairBailey 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang

I had no Idea what you just said, but for my religious beliefs, I think it is false and somethin sould be said about that on there.

Spam from User talk:213.52.145.48

I noticed you warned this user about his/her spamming of website. S/he recently added a link to the International Facility Management Association article linking to some magazine called FMX. While this is a facility management journal, it is in no way affiliated with IFMA. I'm removing the link, and you may want to consider blocking this individual. Thanks for your help.Konczewski 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! that IP seems to be a spam only account.--Hu12 14:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Audio Books

Hu12, I noticed that a number of pages on my watchlist were edited and reverted. A user had added links to audio books and those links were deleted. I'm curious as to why? I don't understand all the policies perhaps, but I had seen some of the links before the reversion, but did not immediately conclude that they violated WP:EL. They were free audiobooks, in the public domain, recognized and compliant with Project Gutenberg. I'm not saying it was the wrong decision, simply that I was curious about the thought process. Thanks! --JayHenry 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Have a look at Special:Contributions/192.102.230.142's contributions to wikipedia, all consist of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm nor a vehicle for promotion. I realy doesn't matter if they were free audiobooks, It doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate, however in this case, adding links for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not.--Hu12 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


I am the one who was adding the audiobook links to Wikipedia articles. It was not a spammer. They are all books in the public domain, produced by volunteers at Librivox.org. I saw that several other articles on individual books already had links to LibriVox, so I didn't think it would be a problem. Perhaps you were alerted by the fact that I edited such a large number of links, but I can assure that there were human hands at the other end of the wire, tediously copying and pasting links because I thought more people might want to know about LibriVox. You're following a good general policy, but it doesn't make sense in my case. If I had edited them one at a time, over a period of days, it would not be a problem, would it? Almost all the books I ran across already had an entry for a link to Project Gutenberg. Would it be wrong for me to add a link to that site as well, if I came across a book that did not have the link? That's all I was doing, except that I was doing it with Librivox. As I said, several articles on individual books, such as Aesop's fables, Pride and Prejudice, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and many others, already had links to Librivox, so linking to Librivox is clearly already an established policy. All I was doing was filling out the entries that did not have it. It'd be inconsistent, if you think links to that site constitutes spamming, for you to leave those sites unedited. The fact that that's all I did last night is not relevant, because they were legitimate, useful links. I think a lot of people will click on a link that says "Free audio book" considering how often that phrase is found in web advertisements. So I request that my edits be restored. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeonMire (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Please see above comment. unfortunatly it is still considered link spamming. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?. see External links policy and Spam policy --Hu12 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the spamstar

Hsu, many thanks for the spamstar award you gave me back in early March. Sorry it has taken me so long to getting around to thanking you, but it doesn't mean I was any less pleased and honored to receive it. Best, Gwernol 14:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passive_fire_protection&diff=122945388&oldid=119738013

Good catch. Well done. --Achim 21:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a prety elaborate linkspam campaign covering multiple wikis. see WikiProject Spam case--Hu12 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Startcom

Hi. I saw the update you made to the WT:WPSPAM archive and that lead me to the Startcom sockpuppet page.

Beyond salting the articles, I suggest you consider blacklisting the domains. This would not stop but it would sure impede the spammer recreating these articles with slightly different names such as "StartCom Linux Pro" or something like that.

As I recall, there were more than one which were in the deleted articles.

Thanks again for all you do about spam! --A. B. (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, for all you do, my contribs are a mere pittance. --Hu12 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Senang Hati Foundation

The speedy tag has been removed twice already -- and not by me. I would appreciate it if you would stop dogging this article. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't gone to Articles for deletion yet--Hu12 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, I've tried to expand the article to explain its notability and I've changed my username as you suggested. I see that my intitial choice of username was poor, and it seems to be the basis of your conflict of interest charge. I have stated that I am not affiliated with the organisation; I am a tourist who happened on the group and thought I'd write a bit about them. You have been intent on deleting this while others have deemed the speedy tags removable. You have not been at all clear about what you are up to; please be clear or back off. Terima Kasih. --Jack Merridew 12:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

jesusfreakhideout "spam" reversions

I noticed you've reverted a slew of edits by DantheCowMan on album articles to which I also contribute. I believe the additions are valid. They're reviews (linked directly) of Christian albums from a Christian site, a site that I've added reviews from in the past myself. I'm curious if you reverted the additions because the frequency and profile of the edits merely made them look like spam, or rather because that specific site is on some blacklist that I don't know about. Thanks. --Fru1tbat 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM, Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.--Hu12 11:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand the policy, but I'm saying I don't believe it's spam at all. The additions are perfectly legitimate reviews, added to album articles. Dan has made plenty of contributions outside of those. It's just that last night he appears to have been working on that one particular aspect of a series of related articles, so looking at his last 100 edits or so, it appears that he's a spammer. He's not. And though it may appear that I'm here on behalf of Dan, the reason I'm asking you to consider that you misjudged those particular additions is that I think they're valuable additions to those articles (on which I happen to contribute). --Fru1tbat 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a repository for links. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Recent contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Hu12 12:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, I'm not arguing the policy. I completely agree that Wikipedia is not a link repository. In this case, though, you're simply misapplying those policies. It is well-established for album articles to have review links, especially in the infobox. The links in question are direct links to relevant reviews. The editor in question was simply updating a large number of related articles with relevant information. You have not disputed any of these assertions. I'm simply asking you to consider that you made a mistake. It's ok. It happens. Just because an editor makes edits to a series of related articles (this happens all the time, legitimately), and it appeared to be spam, does not mean it was actually spam. If you don't think album reviews belong in infoboxes, that issue should be taken up separately, not considered spam when consensus indicates otherwise. --Fru1tbat 12:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It still doesn't confer a license to spam even if it's true. --Hu12 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fru1tbat: Dan is (as far as I know) not affiliated with Jesus Freak Hideout, and is adding reviews from that site in blocks, as one might go through albums at WP:ALBUM and add Rolling Stone reviews to albums that have none. As far as I know, that does not constitute spam, especially as he has made many other edits that cannot be construed as spam (8100 total, according to the wannabe_kate tool). I am against spam as much as you are (or the lady in the Monty Python sketch is, for that matter); I just don't think that this can possibly be construed as linkspam. --3M163//Complete Geek 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. It's not whether or not a user is "allowed to spam". It's the error in categorizing acceptable, relevant additions that happen to be links to external sites as "spam". That is, I'm not saying Dan is allowed to spam. I'm saying he's not spamming. --Fru1tbat 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I totaly agree, however It still doesn't confer a license to spam.--Hu12 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've not been accused of spamming before. Sure, I understand that it would look that way to, say, a spam-autodetection bot, but that alone doesn't make it spam. Let me say this clearly: I am not a spammer. I dont appreciate the accusation, the warning, or the reversion of my edits. Now Let's move on to the issue at hand.

A am an editor with over a year and 7000 edits experience. These days I work wostly within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Christian music. Most of what I do is referencing, and I proudly present to you my last 250 contributions. Beyond the top 100 professional reviews from Jesus Freak Hideout that I added into the "Professional Reviews" portion of the infobox, you'll find regular expansion and of articles, unless you undid that too. I don't say that spitefully, but here you undid quite a bit more that yesterdays edits. 6 rewiews, proper expansion and referencing, all gone. The article is back to it's Jan 11 stone-age form (history). Another, back to November. "Why?", I ask. The answer, of course, Because I am the only person actively working to expand it! This one, back to Jan 31; Removal of proper referencing - a printed book source. How does that help the article in the least? Here's one where I removed a notice that an infobox was needed in the article. Two reasons - the notice was improperly placed, and article has an infobox. So then you come along and blast back two edits, removing the CCM rating that I gave it on Feb 26 and replacing the infobox notice.

Some edits got lucky. Here's one that didn't get reverted because another user saw the value of the review and edited the article to reflect that. Take a close look at the history of Proof That the Youth Are Revolting. It contains myself referencing and sourcing, adding reviews, formating, catting. See Jan 17, when I add reviews that the vast majority of users would not be able to find, seeing as they no longer exist. I used to do this kind of thing all the time. No one made a fuss when I began adding reviews linking to The Phantom Tollbooth ([toolbooth.org]) [34], or began promoting Wikiprojects [35], or built the Category:WikiProject banners and populated it with every banner that I could find that fit the description [36] [37], extensively sorted and catted articles.

As mentioned before, lately my work has been explicitly with WP:CCM, though the scope of my work has truely been there for a while. Mostly I rate, Reference, and generally expand articles [38]. What I did yesterday was no different, execept that the scope of what I was doing was broad and fast. What I did does not constitute spamming in any way, shape, or form. It adds to the quality of the project and Wikipedia's coverage of the artists (& albums) that the project supports. I will revert your rever sions if necessary, but do not wish to have to. Dan, the CowMan 16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your a solid editor, a benifit to the project, no doubt. Overly excited for a particular link. I'll assume good faith, however as mentioned above, either a project aproved template for linking on the massive scale you wish is going to be be reuqired, or this will go through the main stream spam channels, and no one wants that, i sure don't. The fall out could include blacklisting and all that goes with it.--Hu12 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, Dan is adding these review links in blocks because the links are not there already and because Jesus Freak Hideout is the Christian equivalent of, well, probably New Musical Express. (Christian Music Today is the Rolling Stone; Cross Rhythms is the Q Magazine.) Would adding NME reviews to articles lacking them be considered spam? Also, what do you mean by a project-approved template? There doesn't appear to be one for the mainstream magazines given above. Technically, star rankings should be added to the reviews links; if this is what you mean, it's easily doable, and is by no means a reason to delete the reviews. --3M163//Complete Geek 18:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you might still be missing the point here, and I apologize for possibly repeating myself. If you look at where the link is being added (to the "Reviews" field of the album infoboxes), you should see that it is not advertising the website, but merely linking to a review for each individual article's album. All Music Guide is used in exactly the same way (and on a much larger scale, in fact). The fact that it happens to be a series of external links to the same domain name is purely coincidental. There is no need for approval, as external links to album reviews already have consensus approval. In fact, the album infobox already provides space for those very reviews, and that's exactly where these links are being placed. Look, for instance, at the number of album articles that link to All Music Guide. It's not spam. It's not desiring to promote a website. It's just the fact that there are several sites that happen to provide reviews for a large volume of music. These sites are already approved for this very use. If you still see this as a problem, there are much broader implications than this particular case... --Fru1tbat 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I can see where this train is going and I'm on it too. Understand that the essence of this is referencing, and that linking in the way I did yesterday is a quick and inexpensive way to do so, at least initally. I intend to do other sites as well (as I have in the past), including the aforementioned toolbooth.org and others.
I understand that there are templates for external linking, and have worked on some of them myself, but did not realize the connection between such templates and anti-spam efforts. --- Anyway, I've come up with a proposed template (see it in action at User:DantheCowMan/working/tsx) for linking in album infoboxes. I'd like to implement it, but as you know there's a couple hundred links, so a tool such as Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser would be most useful. I have the background and technical expertice to use it properly. Dan, the CowMan 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Dan, the CowMan's message left at WikiProject Spam. - I don't know that there is a verdict. I disagree with Hu12's implication that somehow use of a template makes any difference (though it could be both quicker for you and draw less attention when you do this). A clear assertion on the WikiProject about which review sites have consensus for this sort of wide application (and what the limits on that are) would be helpful. Also a pointer to that assertion in the edit summary when you add the link (which makes it possible for those who look at spamming patterns to quickly ascertain that you have consensus. But these are cosmetic issues about process, they're not about whether or not adding the link is spam. Hu12 seems to think it is - I believe if you have consensus from a group of editors with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, it isn't spam. Which would make this discussion a content dispute about appropriate external links.

I think Hu12 has a valid concern over whether or not you can be sure that all the reviews you are linking to are the best to be linking to for any particular article. A clear rationale about that would be helpful - does the project recommend reading several different reviews and picking the best (and by what criteria)? Do you put up any review from the top three Christian music review magazines plus others as appropriate (and if so, do you need to counter any undue weight or systemic bias from that)? Even good sites need to be critically appraised and the limits of their use to us should be clear if we are encouraging their wide use. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan, the CowMan, there are two issues -- the links' quality and who added them. The link quality topic's been pretty well-flogged by now but there's still a conflict of interest problem. Take a look at the Conflict of Interest (COI) Guideline -- the bottom line is that you shouldn't add these links to these articles. If these are otherwise acceptable links, it is OK for you to suggest the links at the WikiProject or on the article talk pages for other editors to add. (Note: this doesn't mean posting "How do you like this link?" to a talk page, then posting the link yourself anyway, as some diehards have tried to interpret the guideline).
This rule may sound like a bunch of ditzy bureaucracy and perhaps it is, but we have a lot of problems when people don't follow these rules. In fact, there are enough hard feelings generated every day by conflict of interest editing that Wikipedia recently set up a special noticeboard just for these problems: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Skim it and you'll see what Wikipedia's dealing with everyday. You may be great at judging the suitability of your links, but since experience shows the majority of COI editors aren't, it just makes everything easier to have a rule that applies to everyone. Not even the Queen of England gets to edit her own article or link to her own web site.
I suspect Hu12 took one look at the April 18 link count report and had a cow since it shows 70 jesusfreakhideout links added in one 24-hour period. I know that figure stunned me when I saw it. Hu12 was just doing his/her job in reverting all those links. Just as with the COI noticeboard above, skim the April 18 link count report and you'll see why we're concerned about spam.
Dan, the CowMan, I hope this helps. Thanks for those 7000 edits. --A. B. (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion! :-) As far as I can see, there is no conflict of interest: the only guideline at WP:COI that could be applied is "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles". To my knowledge, Dan does not work for and is not connected with Jesus Freak Hideout, so I see no problem with his adding the links. I may be missing something important, though. I am an unemployed student; my only connection with Jesus Freak Hideout is that we're both interested in Christian music. As JFH is strongly notable in this area, what prevents me from adding links to JFH reviews to the relevent article, as a WP:ALBUM contributor would add links to NME or Rolling Stone reviews?
I understand what you're saying about the sight of 70 similar contributions close together; even I was surprised, but I see it as being no different from any other repetitive, tedious task being undertaken in blocks at a time. --3M163//Complete Geek 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:52 18 April 2007 (GMT).

thanks for the note, Rich.--Hu12 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cascade

Please don't cascade protect pages unless there is a good reason to do so. Applying it often causes collateral damage. Prodego talk 22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed from the grown-ups: the kalakendra.com spammer

Hi. Can you use your admin powers to block these IPs indefinitely:

Background:

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:☑.svg Done--Hu12 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --A. B. (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming of http: //spam.inciner8.com

I have replied to User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Spamming of http: //spam.inciner8.com. Anthony Appleyard 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for the barnstar. It's been a challenging month and that was a real morale-booster. --A. B. (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You earned it!--Hu12 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Link Deletion on BMW E9

I think that the links to external WWW sites for BMW E9 enthusiasts are valuable. Why did you delete them? Sun-collector 14:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They were removed per the External links policy --Hu12 17:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A-bike

Please check and correct the A-bike page. I don't have an ability to correct by myself. Thanks in advance. -- Binch Shin on 00:30 2nd May (Korea time)

Spamming of http: //spam.inciner8.com

I am very sorry if I have offended against any rules. If Wikipedia has a list of external links which are not to be included in articles, I will obey that list. Please what is happening? Anthony Appleyard 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That message points to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist , which list does not contain inciner8 anywhere.

I included the inciner8 link not to promote that firm's business but because that web site contains good images of small incinerators, and copyright stops me from copying those images into Wikipedia. I have no connection with these firms.

Among the confusion of many hands editing Incineration and me having to revert vandalism, your edit got reverted also. Sorry.

You wrote:

Both sites are inappropriate external links and are Links normally to be avoided. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists, directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites.

I realise that and I have studied those pages. But Wikipedia contains thousands of links to manufacturers of described items.

OK. OK, I better back off, to avoid an edit war. Sorry.

Anthony Appleyard 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Spamming of inciner8.com. Just because Wikipedia contains thousands of inappropriate links, that we haven't gotten around to removing yet, does not mean that we have some obligation to include your site. Yes, persistent spammers may have their websites added to the blacklist, which will preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist and includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. --Hu12 20:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern. But I should point out that the web site in question is not "my site". I have no connection whatever with the firm Inciner8 International. I do not know any of their contact addresses. I have never been to any of their premises. I hold no shares in any company. I was pointing to their web site merely for the images of small incinerators in it, images which I cannot find elsewhere. I realize now that linking like that caused unwanted advertizing as an unwanted byproduct. I realise that I must not link to that site again. Anthony Appleyard 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding in this matter. --Hu12 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Another user (User:Fergie48) has now put the inciner8 link back in. Anthony Appleyard 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kreis articles

pls see discussions at User talk:Bwood, User_talk:Eagle_101, Talk:Kreis_Wongrowitz.Bwood 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

L3_Internet_TV

This article, which you speedied, is currently on DRV, should you wish to comment. (Fear not; the link is blue only temporarily, and only because an editor wanted to see its previous contents.) —Cryptic 00:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Cryptic --Hu12 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nurikabe reversion

Hi Hu12, I'm wondering why you reverted my changes to the Nurikabe page. I made the changes on Jan. 22, 2007, and you reverted them on Jan. 25. I realize I'm not widely read on Wikipedia policy, so I'm open to constructive instruction here. It would be helpful though to have comments with your reversion. Huttarl 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rule of Rose

The RoR spammers fansite fans are complaining loudly, see [39]. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Prediction Markets

So why delete the podcasts added to the external links section? Thanks, Wescbell 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted link

Out of curiosity, what was the link in Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change that raised concern? I'm a frequent editor on that page so I'd appreciate knowing (a diff didn't show anything). You're welcome to reply by email if you'd rather not disclose it here. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

racetotheright.com was being used as an off-wiki attack site on various editors, and administrators, Which most likley lead to its being blacklisted from the project.--Hu12 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I was one of the "various editors." Many of us considered it a badge of honor to be listed there, though blacklisting it was a good call. Any implications for User:Mnyakko who is owner of that site, and his staffer User:Zeeboid? Raymond Arritt 02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fortean Times "link spam"

Youa re going through removing links to the Fortean Times site. As I added quite a few this seems very odd. For example you took out the link form the entry on Paul Sieveking even though he is one of the editors of the magazine and the link surely makes sense. Equally you removed a lot of references from the Charles Fort entry [40] (including something not a link and not even mentioning Fortean Times). Most of the links to specific articles on the Fortean Times site were added to already existing references to artciles which you have removed completely. This would then seem to suggest that we are not even allowed to reference the magazine which is not something that is going to be very useful for the Paranormal Project which makes a lot of use of the magazine's articles for references. Can you direct me to the discussion where it was decided that the Fortean Times wasn't allowed as a source for references and where it was deemed to be on some kind of spam list as I'd like to appeal against such a decision. (Emperor 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Summary: Dennis Publishing 194.205.219.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) spam on Wikipedia, IP addresses 194.205.219.0 - 194.205.219.255 are registered to Dennis Publishing.

Domains spammed:

rmvd multi article linkspam for these related domains added by 194.205.219.2 relevent policies are WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI. It appears you May have a Advertising and conflicts of interest, reference=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emperor&oldid=56351851 "I help out with the web site of the Fortean Times magazine."--Hu12 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I can see how that'd be an issue. I was worried as I'd added quite a few links and didn't want to get into trouble. Actually now I think about it they updated the site (and others?) and the links stopped working. I did query this (as I have a lot of the articles bookmarked and linked into from my own site) and it was going to be fixed. I haven't checked but it is possible they were going through updating the links so they pointed at the new locations. I'll have a look round and see what has happened. If that is the case I suspect they have been updating broken links which is probably quite an innocent thing. (Emperor 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
And I have been clear and open about that. If there were any concerns over WP:NPOV (or I even thought there might be) then I'd remove myself from debate. (Emperor 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
This is a pattern of abuse of Wikipedia, that IP added 76 links just today. Continued spamming can lead to blacklisting, baning ect. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.--Hu12 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I see. Although I could argue that I neither "own, maintain or represent" the site it is a grey area and from now on I will add link suggestions via the talk page as suggested. As mentioned I did check if that address was updating the URLs to point at the new locations and they don't seem to be so I am not sure what they were doing (a bored day at the office?). I will drop a line to the person I know at Dennis Interactive with a link to this so they can pass it around and make sure this doesn't happen again as it wastes everyone's time. (Emperor 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
best to direct any further discussion to WikiProject Spam case. --Hu12 20:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that but I don't have anything else to add. I have passed on a note the person I know at Dennis and hopefully it shouldn't happen again as it is a useful source for the Paranormal Project and it'd make their life more difficult if it was blacklisted. Thanks for outlining the issue for me it has been helpful. (Emperor 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
Could I just flag this reversion you made to my edits: Robert Damon Schneck you have removed large amounts of no-Fortean Times material (which was added in good faith and for which there is zero conflict of interest) and left the actual Fortean Times link. If you are concerned about the links to the Fortean Times site from that entry then that is one thing but removing good faith edits including references to other magazines and links to completely unrelated sites seems excessive. I'd like to re-edit the entry and remove the actual offending material but I don't want to run afoul of any kind of system. I would also like to ask if all my edits on related (i.e. paranormal) entries are considered suspect and are due for removal, whether ot not they actually have COI issues? (Emperor 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
Unfortunatly you do have a conflict of interest as evidenced by your user page( ="I help out with the web site of the Fortean Times magazine." ) and the fact that multitude of links still remaining on the Wikipedia were inserted by you. Feel free to explain your involvment over at WT:WPSPAM.--Hu12 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edit [41] at Operation Ore, I think it got caught accidentally - the anon IP originally added a link way back in Jan 2006 so doesn't appear to be part of the same pattern (and may not have been the same person?) Also the links are relevant to the article, and used as references. Mdwh 23:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

pcpro.co.uk addition to Operation Ore, was added by Special:Contributions/194.205.219.2. IP addresses 194.205.219.0 - 194.205.219.255 are registered to Dennis Publishing. Which is a clear indication of Advertising and conflicts of interest, despite the age of the addition.--Hu12 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the quesion is also whether editors can add the links back in as long as they stay within the various guidelines you link to above. In an edit to this section you said this before you were aware of my own COI in the matter: "Feel free to add back YOUR contribs to the Charles Fort article, as 194.205.219.2's contribs are all I'm targeting.--Hu12 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)" [42] which would suggest that adding links articles on the Fortean Times site is still OK as long as it is relevant and a good source and there is no COI. (Emperor 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
Yes, editors can add the links back in as long as they stay within guidelines.--Hu12 11:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks. As I said I'll be removing the links I've added (as they are broken and I can't update them) and although I don't have the current/updated links someone will probably ask what the situation is and want to make sure things are as clear as possible. (Emperor 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Arthur Koestler article

I am bemused as to why the link to the Arthur Koestler article on the Fortean Times page keeps on being deleted as "spam". Thousands on pages on wikipedia link to newspapers, magazines etc, and this is hardly different to any of these. The article was an interesting review of the man's life, and was hardly advertising. --MacRusgail 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. I did not put the link up myself originally, but think that it is an informative article. I don't have any shares in the magazine or whoever owns the thing. p.p.s. We're discussing this on the article talk page, so please put any replies there, thanks.

= MUGEN Mutant Mice Database, BSRC Al. Fleming etc

Hi Hu12, from a different point of view, a wikipedia user should contribute only to the articles he/she had an expertise. This is may be a way to increase the high standard of knowledge which wikipedia provides. We have not all wikipedia users expertise in every matter.Is it possible to have your feedback on this? Thank you in advance. Afantitis

Comparison of time tracking software

Hi. I noticed that you did a lot of editing on Comparison of time tracking software. I believe your efforts were deleted incorrectly. Most of the chart was deleted with the reason being that most of the entries on the chart were not notable. Wikipedia guidelines do not require that all the entries on a chart or list have to be notable. Only the topic of the list or chart has to be notable. Please see WP:NOT#DIR:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables."

Also, the links were claimed to be spam links. That is also incorrect. They are embedded citation links. See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. I am trying to return the bulk of the chart. But another editor keeps deleting it using these non-guideline reasons. I will not bother trying to return the bulk of the chart and the many hours of effort that represents if some of the editors who created the page are not interested. --Timeshifter 23:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hu12. This is pretty funny. I don't think Timeshifter even bothered to look at your edits before sending off this talk-canvass-spam. I'm having a problem with Timeshifter on the Comparison of time tracking software article, could you put it on your watchlist? There is also a big mess brewing on WP:EL and a little spill over to WP:NOT. You probably don't want to read Timeshifter's 5 lengthy threads but the main theme is the weakening of WP:EL and WP:NOT with regard to reference/citation spam. The central argument is: does simply putting some <ref> tags around a linkfarm protect it from being deleted as spam. (Requestion 06:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
Requestion. Actually, I noticed that Hu12 lived with Comparison of time tracking software for a long time with the chart in its longer form, and thought Hu12 might be disturbed by your rewrite of the wikipedia guidelines, and your misinterpretation of wikipedia guidelines. All with the purpose of blanking large parts of lists and charts that you don't like. You just caused another very skilled editor to give up on this chart after many hours of work:
Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
You feigned compassion after he gave up on the talk page. What exactly have you created on wikipedia? From looking at your user contributions, Requestion, it looks like you mostly have just deleted stuff from wikipedia. Deleting spam in the external links sections of articles is a good thing. Deleting citation/reference links is extremely detrimental to wikipedia. Deleting valuable lists and charts is even more destructive, and causes many editors to give up on wikipedia. Hope you are proud. --Timeshifter 08:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Article Ayesha Takia

Your recent deletion of the reference link in Ayesha Takia may be a bit off base. Used as a reference, She signed a contract for Socha Na Tha, then for Taarzan: The Wonder Car. However, delays in making Socha Na Tha meant that Taarzan released first and was therefore her "debut" film. is a direct quote from the referenced article which in that sense my be a copywrite violation instead. The reference link was http: //www.chakpak.com/celebrity/ayesha-takia/biography/29638 Dbiel (Talk) 06:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.