Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 21 February 2008

6,937,547 /Sandboxx

Welcome

Welcome to the talk page . --Hu12 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Paralegal

I added information on certification. OK? Bearian (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Asia fanclub spam being re-added again

The owner of the Asia fanclub has sidetracked the Wiki blacklist of his original website URL and registered a new "un-black'd" version to spam the Asia (band) article again. This time he is showing up as http://asiafanclub.4t.com/contact.html. Is there any chance of having this address blacklisted as well? Using sockpuppets and issuing legal threats is one thing... but now he is moved up to a new level of spam determination. Can it be blocked? Thanks for you help. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate being called an SOB :) . It's so un-wiki-like. :D 156.34.225.77 (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz 03:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of one-click hosters

Hi, I've seen that you have deleted the history of the article and the discussion page of Comparison of one-click hosters (here) for the reason of "Housekeeping". I don't think that this is a case of housekeeping, because this information is still useful for me and other users, so I would like to ask you to restore the history. Thanks. --X-Bert (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

userfied. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Could you please also restore the original discussion page? It is interesting for anybody who wonders why there is no such extended list. --X-Bert (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

==Deletion Review for Talk:Comparison of one-click hosters==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Comparison of one-click hosters. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --X-Bert (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

please unrevert your revert

of my last edit (although I realize this is a shared address). for personal reasons I do not wish to log in, but I am that user (mail me for confirmation if you care to). cheers, alex. 209.183.34.45 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand

I do not understand this as the editor in question is not currently blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI that I am reverting your revert, as editors are free to delete comments from their talk page at will. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bamford and that COI tag

He's at it again; see WP:ANI#Bamford and that COI tag. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Please note this page where an editor has opened up a Deletion Review of an AfD debate you were involved in. Whilst such a request is clearly within their rights that editor has only contacted one or two of those who took part during the AfD process. It would in my view be more appropriate to include a notice to all persons (including yourself) that were interested in the first Article for Deletion debate, and I provide such a notice and link here. Best wishes --VS 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA support

→ In re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/EdJohnston.

Your support is obvious to anyone who reads the nomination, but it you don't add it in the numbered section as well it won't be counted — Athaenara ✉ 23:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the kind of note which really calls for archiving, so feel free to delete it after (rather than before? *doh*) you've read it! — Athaenara ✉ 23:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mule (Software)

Hi Hu12, I noticed you reverted the edits on the Mule (Software) page. I'm not sure why you did this - the edits appear just fine to me. Are there particular edits that you feel inappropriate. By coincidence, this article has become interesting to me recently - I'm not stalking you! Bardcom (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Hu12, is it OK to revert some or all of your edits on the Mule (Software) page? If I understood your reasons to undo the previous edits, I'd make sure that the same mistake was avoided this time... Bardcom (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Its reverted, error on my part. thanks Bardcom--Hu12 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bamford

I had really hoped this user would just give up and leave, but it seems he hasn't, good call by you. My bad for not blocking longer sooner. MBisanz 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He's said for days he's leaving, yet he stays and trolls. Would be a completely different scenario if he "wanted" to work with others and learn. It is sad.--Hu12 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the huge list of IPs and his attacks. This bad cop is not learning and after the 48h will likely be right back at it. I expect that this will next go to an indefinite block and a month or so of semi-protection on all the pages he's interested in and full protection on his account talk pages. This would give him time to loose interest and find something else to do (i.e. somewhere else to do it). If such a discussion occurs on an/i or elsewhere, please let me know and I'll comment. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		It really should be The Common Sense Barnstar. You are a user who sees through the bureaucracy of Misplaced Pages and does what is right and logical. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Hu12 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mail

You know the rest :) --Herby 11:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hi Hu12! Thanks for nominating me, and I'll try to live up to your kind words. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved, you wil be a great sysop! Oh yeah, try not to block yourself (its tempting)..LOL--Hu12 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

unprotect Monitor Group discussion page

Hi, I was just wondering if you could unprotect the discussion page . I think you originally protected it because the article was deleted but it has since been recreated. 216.80.64.153 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

message

Hi, are you from USSR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.10.78 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indiana University Archive

While the link may be spam in some articles, it isn't in the 32 County Sovereignty Movement or Saoirse articles. For these two particular articles, it holds a comprehensive back issue archive of publications of two Irish political parties which aren't even available on the websites of the organisations themselves. and for details. While spam cleanup is important, if regular editors of the articles who are familiar with that link (I've used it for cites previously in other articles) say the link belongs, it isn't really good form to repeatedly revert them including the use of rollback. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But its a good link... These are Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis spam socks that are adding them, which makes it spam. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu. It is not the content of the links that interest me by the time it has got to this stage. Links to this site are repeatedly added by WP:SPA WP:COI accounts and IP's. The rationale for placing the links becomes quite secondary to the behaviour. that being said, you want it there and thats good enough for me.--Hu12 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware it's originally spam. I'm just saying that if the normal editors of an article have evaluated it, and found it to be an appropriate link (which it is for those two articles) it's bad form to class every occurence of the link as spam and edit war with them over its inclusion. The first removal is fine, but if you encounter resistance from regular, experienced editors of the article it's time to re-evaluate. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Claiming "edit war" is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the disruptive editing policy. You and I were the only editors since its insertion yesterday. I see no evidence that it was ever discussed on the talk page. The rationale for placing the links becomes quite secondary to the behaviour when that behavior violates site policies such as WP:NOT, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:SOCK.--Hu12 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem intent on somehow justifying edit warring with an experienced editor including the misuse of admin rollback - so be it. The "policies" you have just pointed to are irrelevant. I have no WP:COI in adding that link back, and neither is there any violation of WP:SOCK in me adding that link back. For WP:SPAM to come into play, there would have to be a violation of WP:EL. Exactly which part of WP:EL do you think applies to the link in those particular articles? Which part of WP:NOT do you think applies to the link in those particular articles? What's this "disruptive editing policy" you're referring to? Exact link to it please. The actions of the original editor don't apply to me - I properly evaluated the link on a case by case basis and found its inclusion to be appropriate in those two articles. You then blindly reverted me, abusing admin rollback in the process, all under the banner of a non-existent "disruptive editing policy". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you engaging in an edit war for inclusion when you clearly did not attempt to contact me? My last revision was 18:20, 21 February 2008, you messsage was placed 18:44, 21 February 2008. So don't play the "Admin abuse" card, when there was clear abuse here. After your post here I replied "you want it there and thats good enough for me'. Abuse? - did I revert after this discussion - NO!

If you infact properly evaluated the link on a case by case basis and found its inclusion to be appropriate, you must lightning fast;

(cur) (last) 18:10, 21 February 2008 One Night In Hackney (Talk | contribs | block)
(cur) (last) 18:09, 21 February 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs | block) (undo)

I see no evidence that this was ever discussed on the talk page. Any way, I was editing based on linksearch and the spam account contribs, in which the page came up as having the link, so your speedy reversions (see above) kept it on the list, it never registered as having been removed already, thus my unknowing multiple reverts. As I said before you want it there, thats good enough for me. The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, which you did only after engaging in an edit war.--Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The link was added two days ago, I evaluated it then. It's a link I'm more than familiar with in regards to hosting of document archives, for example here is an edit from August 2007 where I added it as a cite for information I added. There isn't a discussion on the talk page because the link was added, I evaluated it, found it to be appropriate, and left it in the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this whole discussion. If these are good and valuable links, and the few that I've seen certainly appear to be, what difference on earth does it make who added them? How exactly do they qualify as spam? -- Zsero (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to make. Even if the original spammer is in breach of COI, SPAM etc etc, if an experienced editor adds it back that ceases to be the case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As explained, any experience editor contacts another person before engaging in an edit war, the diffs of your "after the fact" attempt to contact are noted above. I've explained why I didn't see your reverts, whats your excuse?--Hu12 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu. Spam Advertising is prohibited (commercial or otherwise). In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links.. factor these together - and the big picture shows someone who is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests. This is the essense of spamming.--Hu12 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't see my revert? Really? Honestly? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Must mean admin abuse, right?--Hu12 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Means you're not being entirely truthful. If you didn't see my edit, how did you manage to roll it back? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Grab a hold of that and run with it, make sure to wave the abuse flag too. BTW revert and revert(s) are distincly different.--Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No rush, I'll keep my powder dry. Rest assured it'll be used at the most inconvenient moment for you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)