Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] ([[User talk:Ralbot|talk]]) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)</small> |
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] ([[User talk:Ralbot|talk]]) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)</small> |
||
==VO== |
|||
If you'd like, I can bring up a [[WP:HARRASS|harrassment]] charge against you for restoring VO's harrassment. Sound good? Let me know. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:01, 27 April 2008
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.. |
A quiz:
Spammers, friends and critics can't agree -- is User:A. B.:
- A. "She (because clearly she's a bitch) is just doing her thing up in New Jersey. No one likes you, mother of three. No one." [1][2]
- B. "Worst of all this user is very offensive to females." [3]
- C. A stalker "from birmgingham england." [5]
- D. A "lesbian feminazi."[6][7] … wearing her "undies in a bunch?" [8]
- E. A "robot." [9][10]
- F. Hiding a pornographic fire-parrot in Wikipedia's sandbox.[11]
- G. Living in Minnesota, USA.[12]
- H. Canadian, eh? [13] Tamil, no?[14]
- I. A Yankee?[15] A Tennesseean?[16] A Yankee and a "Kerry freak"?[17]
- J. Just stupid.[18]
- K. All of the above.
- L. None of the above.
- M. Somedays one, somedays another.
You decide.
Another question:
- Who edits Wikipedia?
Essay
re:[19]. You realy need to start an essay (time permitting), thats wonderful stuff!--Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughts on the spam-blacklist. It is very helpful. I hope that other's will also offer their thoughts too... so far you are the only one. As you know, there are still some unanswered questions, and I'm not sure the best way to reply, organize key questions, and move forward. I'm afraid that replying below your comment will quickly become confusing. I also want to respect the groups time, and contributions to wikipedia... and I see that my comment was already removed once by a respected wiki admin. What do you suggest?
- Sign your username: Newtowiki2 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- See this guideline:
- It lays out some guidelines as to how to conduct a talk page conversation and keep it straight who's saying what. I suggest you go ahead and respond to my comment. I just ask that you not intersperse your comments within mine. As for your comment's removal, I can't speak for another's edits, but he may have been concerned you might be trolling since you're a new user. I wouldn't worry too much about it. --A. B. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. That took a long time to sort out, and I'm not sure i did it in the best way I could of. I hope someone with more experience fixes it if a table was not the way to go. I shouldn't have asked so many questions at one time! Me and my curiosity!! Newtowiki2 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have an idea for a next step, but want to know what you think. I tried to put a sample table here, but i must have done it wrong - as the table interfered with some of your other entries - so I reverted. please see the history of the page. thanks! Newtowiki2 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. That took a long time to sort out, and I'm not sure i did it in the best way I could of. I hope someone with more experience fixes it if a table was not the way to go. I shouldn't have asked so many questions at one time! Me and my curiosity!! Newtowiki2 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the terse replies -- headed to airport.
- I'd hold off for a little while. This is important but not urgent. Unfortunately, Wikipedia maintenance and discussion is often oriented towards urgency vs. importance. (Vandal defacing the Millard Fillmore article vs. what's our strategy). A lot of policy also gets shaped reactively in response to some emotionally engaging drama.
- Tables are a lot of work! That format may not be necessary. It can also hamper interactive discussion about data within the table. Let me think about this. I've thought for a long time about developing my own FAQ about spam -- just my personal views and approaches. The nice thing about that is that a FAQ can grow organically better than a table.
- We may want to start a separate discussion page.
- If you haven't heard from me for a week, feel free to remind me. I'll be traveling in the meantime.
- Gotta run. --A. B. (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the terse replies -- headed to airport.
I agree with the article protection, but if the talk page is protected, the editing dispute can't be solved. I'll keep an eye on the page to watch for any trolling, if you agree to unprotect it. · AndonicO Hail! 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- AndonicO, my concern is that our indefinitely blocked spammer just keeps trolling the talk page using a wide range of IPs. If you review the talk page history, you'll see what I mean. I'm not knowledgeable enough to figure out an appropriate range block to stop this without doing a lot of collateral damage. I'm also a new admin and still feeling my way on things like blocks and protection.
- I'm traveling and don't have a lot of time to watch this. I trust your judgement and you have my blessing to undo my actions as you see fit -- feel free to unprotect the talk page if you think that's best.
- I've got to go. Thanks for your help and advice on this one. --A. B. (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not accept that the person under debate is either a spammer or trolling, although s/he has acted unhelpfully and certainly does his/her case great harm. We should assume good faith, avoid inflammatory language ("spammer", "trolling") and continue to engage on the Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bondegezou, I think I have already engaged with this individual and with others on the talk page; I really just don't have anything more to add to the remarks I've already made.[20][21][22][23][24] This person has demonstrated very bad faith and his/her behaviour matches our definition of spam. --A. B. (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I restored your original semi-protection, but lengthened it by a few days. · AndonicO Hail! 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- A. B. and AndonicO, Perhaps at this point a range block may be in order? I agree with the PP, but it appears this person isnt going away, and has been here since 11 August 2006 and was removed [25][26][27] several times (edit warrring) early on. moving his link "up" is never a sign of good faith. thoughts--Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's not good to protect a page for very long time but then again it's not good to block a range of IPs for very long (in this case, several ranges of IPs). My own instinct is to extend semi-protection if needed as opposed to range-blocking assuming the disruption is limited to that one page. You've both got more experience as admins with this sort of thing, however, and I defer to your judgement. --A. B. (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The range block was brought up on Talk:Asia (band) by Blow of Light and in the SSP/Mondrago "Conclusions" by Jehochman, I would support this, as the disruption has continued since the suggestions. --Hu12 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's not good to protect a page for very long time but then again it's not good to block a range of IPs for very long (in this case, several ranges of IPs). My own instinct is to extend semi-protection if needed as opposed to range-blocking assuming the disruption is limited to that one page. You've both got more experience as admins with this sort of thing, however, and I defer to your judgement. --A. B. (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry to interrupt this convo but since several of you are involved in the issues going on at the Asia page I thought I would interject a personal concern here where several eyes could pick up on it... rather than chase each of you down individually. It's nothing major... unless you're me... but on the Asia talk page there is a very lengthy list of IPs that are being linked to the ongoing spam push by the Asia Fan Club President. The problem is... and this is my concern... one of my IPs (a noble 156.34.X range) is listed among the many IPs that have been used by the AFC Pres. Trust me... the FC pres does not live in Eastern Canada :D . I was going to rm it myself but then I thought... "there just ain't enough edit summary space to properly clarify the reason for its removal". I didn't want to look like I was hiding something :D. Could one of you be so kind as to clear my trustworthy IP range from any connections with the AFC pres and all his woeful pain and suffering apparently caused by Wikipedia. I just want me number back eh? :D . Have a nice day! 'Libs' 156.34.226.160 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks... much appreciated! 156.34.226.160 (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
More range blocks More range blocks [30][31][32][33] he's back at it.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- ASIA FAN CLUB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
found this, also spamming forums including email abuse.--Hu12 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)- ".... you think it's over... if you think I'm going anywhere think again, real good."--Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- ASIA FAN CLUB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- I suggest ignoring him as long as he doesn't deface something in article-space. Just let him wear himself out ranting on that talk page. Heck, he can come to my page and rant if he wants. His behaviour has been totally out of line and in contravention of multiple policies and guidelines, starting with WP:CIVIL. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- "2002 also saw the formation of the Official Armada Fan Club, to work in conjunction with the Armada website. This is the only Official Asia Fan Club in the bands history."[34]... The band's management company does not even recognise this guy's personal site as anything official. A note from the band's management posted on the Official Asia Fan Club site (originalasia.com), "We are aware of various sites selling photos and prints relating to Asia. Please note that unless these can demonstrate legitimate copyright approval, such product may be regarded as unauthorised and will probably be benefiting opportunist pirates, bootleggers and copyright cheats. Nothing less than theft - a criminal offence."[35] asiafanclub is not recognized by the band's management, nor does not appear on any of the official lists as authorized. --Hu12 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest ignoring him as long as he doesn't deface something in article-space. Just let him wear himself out ranting on that talk page. Heck, he can come to my page and rant if he wants. His behaviour has been totally out of line and in contravention of multiple policies and guidelines, starting with WP:CIVIL. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_self_proclaimed_.22Asia_Fan_Club_President.22--Hu12 (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea -- thanks for starting this. I left my two cents. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How is you Troll collection..:)
Did you find all the species, or new one's still turn up..:) Igor Berger (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well I've been very busy off-line this past 6 weeks so I haven't had much time for collecting. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well if you ever need a good Troll, I am at your service..:) But I think we have done a really good job over the past few months getting rid of Spammers and vandals. Now slowly, if we can reduce the POV pushers or if they can become more moderate, we can go back about the business of editing the Wikipedia or some other favorite past time like writing our blogs! Igor Berger (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well I've been very busy off-line this past 6 weeks so I haven't had much time for collecting. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace edit warring warning template
What do you think about making an Edit warring warning template? While we have Template:Uw-own3 but it may not directly address the problem. While many editors from time to time envolve in edit warring, we recommend to follow WP:DR. But the problem is WP:SPA anon IP's, soclpuppets, meatpuppets and other WP:ABF editors to not respect WP:consensus and do not listen to reasoning by established Wikipedia good faith editors. Many times the POV editors do not violate WP:CIVIL or WP:3RR in policy but they violate it in spirit via tendentious editing, slowly and surely grinding an article for their POV, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. We want to WP:AGF with all editors, established and new, but when an editor is told politely, on their talk page and article talk pages, to respect and follow the consensus of the editors involved in the specific article, still they do not, they should be warned with a template of their behaviour. The template warnings can be escalated while seeking WP:DR at the same time. Also, do we have WP essay that deals with edit warring? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have much of an opinion on this one way or the other, Igor. I don't get involved in edit wars very often but when I do, I usually avoid throwing templates at people. If I can't reason with the person and they're out of line, I'll go and bring in others to offer neutral third party opinions. So I don't have much useful experience to offer you. Perhaps you might want to raise this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- I think you might engender some useful discussion on that page about this issue and your idea. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, I always ask for third opinions and follow other methods of dispute resolution but often with these type of editors they are not interested in listening. Also to bother other editors again and again maybe seen as WP:canvassing. So I am thinking of carrot and a stick approach when dealing with such problems. I will take your advice and raise the proposal on 3RR talk page and see what other experienced editors think. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't the kind of thing you bring up at an admin's talk page. If you have a general suggestion, post it at WP:VPR. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:03, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I know A. B. for a while now and I feel comfortable asking his advice, especially that he is part of the Wikipedia Spam project, like me, and I thought the template should be in the section of warning templates, which are referenced from the project. But thank you for your suggestion and I will raise the question at the village pump. Igor Berger (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's OK, Equazcion, but thanks for your concern -- and for watching over my talk page (I'm not around as much as I'd like these days). --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- A.B. I invited Equazcion to comment because I respect his knowledge of Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's OK, Equazcion, but thanks for your concern -- and for watching over my talk page (I'm not around as much as I'd like these days). --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I know A. B. for a while now and I feel comfortable asking his advice, especially that he is part of the Wikipedia Spam project, like me, and I thought the template should be in the section of warning templates, which are referenced from the project. But thank you for your suggestion and I will raise the question at the village pump. Igor Berger (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't the kind of thing you bring up at an admin's talk page. If you have a general suggestion, post it at WP:VPR. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:03, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, I always ask for third opinions and follow other methods of dispute resolution but often with these type of editors they are not interested in listening. Also to bother other editors again and again maybe seen as WP:canvassing. So I am thinking of carrot and a stick approach when dealing with such problems. I will take your advice and raise the proposal on 3RR talk page and see what other experienced editors think. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have much of an opinion on this one way or the other, Igor. I don't get involved in edit wars very often but when I do, I usually avoid throwing templates at people. If I can't reason with the person and they're out of line, I'll go and bring in others to offer neutral third party opinions. So I don't have much useful experience to offer you. Perhaps you might want to raise this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- I think you might engender some useful discussion on that page about this issue and your idea. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Problem
I'm out of my depth here and I hope I'm doing the right thing by posting this.
I have an issue with the way that content is being dis[layed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment
The issue is the unfounded and unproved list of allegations of collusion about the regiment. Sources are being used which are partisan and not factual. I am now in an editing war with more than one user. The others are insisting upon having the controversial material in whereas I prefer to see only the facts. I have left in proven allegations i.e court cases but do not want to see other adding material which is deliberately misleading (desgined to make the reader think the regiment was corrupt).
Can you help me navigate through whatever procedures I need to get involved in please?
GDD1000 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'd start by discussing the links one by one on the talk page: Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment
- Be patient and spend the time necessary to reach consensus on the contested parts of the article, line by line, link by link.
- If this doesn't work, you can go to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for more advice.
Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Thanks for cleaning up all the modelsobserver.com spam! -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
RFA Thanks
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 20:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Q & ..
Any chance of a SpamReportBot option on {{LinkSummary}} like meta? Also, for large removals of BL'd links that require a less delecate approach, there is RoboMaxCyberSem Task 4.--Hu12 (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be slow in replying. Thanks for the word about the bot.
If you feel like it
Comments here are welcome, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
La Nacion (Costa Rica)
As you suggested, I created a stub for La Nación (San José), and I found there was already a La Nación (disambiguation) page, that already listed the Costa Rican newspaper as (San José) rather than (Costa Rica), so I kept that title. And just in case, I also made the redirectioning of La Nacion (San José), La Nación (Costa Rica), and La Nacion (Costa Rica), because it is common for English speaker not to use the Spanish accent. Thanks for your prompt help in removing www.nacion.com from the spam blacklist. Mariordo (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion?
Should this be deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_SRS/Secret_Page --What does this button do? (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
this is going to sound stupid and random but...
can you add gallon man day to the main page tomorrow? it's for my math class. i may get extra credit.
Spockezri (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
VO
If you'd like, I can bring up a harrassment charge against you for restoring VO's harrassment. Sound good? Let me know. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)