Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/NSK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thanks 2 Seen this before 3 WP:NPA 4 Spam spam spam spam

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the formatting and diffs, Angela and Texture. In the past, faced with such an overwhelming and cumbersome task, I would simply have used my intuitive sense of "wrongdoing" (like Peter Parker's spidey sense) and unilaterally suspended both of NSK's accounts.

But I promised UninvitedCompany, et al; and Raul, et al, that I would no longer take precipitate action like this. The NSK case is not as clear as "Wikipedia:simple vandalism" and requires community consensus for resolution. (I'm also not blocking [[User:]] who censored a Vietnam War-related article, because that also requires community consensus, being as it involves hard-to-interpret issues related to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:POV.) Uncle Ed 17:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking a more measured approach to this one, Ed. I wouldn't have complained very loudly (if at all) if you had blocked NSK outright, but hey, it's a Good Thing™ to do it this way. android79 00:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seen this before

The same thing happened at Credit repair back in November 2003, see Talk:Credit repair. A user posted material copied from his own website, and used the "preservation of copyright notices" clause in the GFDL to defend the inclusion of a link back. Of course, Wikipedia is not required to host any GFDL-licensed material that a user cares to post. All offending material was removed. -- Tim Starling 17:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

On some articles, the same sites Wikinerds used were the same sites that we used. If we can get the same information from the Internet without having to use Wikinerds, we do not have to have their website link at all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I remember that one. It was precedent-setting. Uncle Ed 18:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

This is ludicrous:

...your primary objective is to bully [1]

UninvitedCompany is trying to defend the Wikipedia. Even in my own RFArb and related mediations, UC has consistently (1) been a gentleman and (2) insisted only on consensus. He has never been a bully toward anyone; he's hardly even been forceful (unlike me!) Uncle Ed 18:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam spam spam spam

I looked into this a wee bit and find only one real issue, but that one issue is that this person appears to be here ONLY to promote an ADVERT containing site he owns, operates, and promotes. In the article Jochen Liedtke he adds "http://portal.wikinerds.org/jochen-liedtke" to promote his wikinerd site. At [2] he uses a talk page to promote his revenue generating site. His contributions speak for themselves. I didn't see anything at his site I care to ever use or add to, but I wish him well in his self employment efforts and I feel we can best help him (and Wikipedia) by speedily convincing him he's throwing away his promotional efforts here and would receive a greater return on his investment of time if that time were spend elsewhere (perhaps Slashdot - another for profit enterprise most willing to collaberate for mutual gain) WAS 4.250 23:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)