Wikipedia

User talk:A. B./September 2008

< User talk:A. B.
Latest comment: 15 years ago by A. B. in topic Discrepancy on Whitelist Approvals
Learn more about this page
Archive This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of September 2008. Exchanges spilling over from late August or into early October may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form.

Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.


Note: some of these were archived out of chronological order! edit

Luna Musik/Guzman Construction edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

See also Special:Contributions/75.153.46.151. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. That's very relevant information and changes how we handle this -- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Luna Musik Management, Guzman Construction.
Whenever you encounter a spammer, add a tracking link on his/her page to the spam domain(s). That makes it easy to find sock IPs.
Again, thanks very much. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd be happy to - is there a template? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I add the following:
  1. Always: a "live link" to the actual site: http://example.com (Contrary to some fears, this doesn't buy any search engine favor for the spam domain). Adding this link means this spam account page show up if someone uses the Special:Linksearch page to look for other instances; for example, click on this wikilink and you'll see this talk page on the list because of the live link above:
    Special:Linksearch/*.example.com
    Often spammers use multiple accounts and you don't know there's a real problem until you see the cross-account pattern.
  2. A list of domains adding this link. I use these special spam investigation templates but that's not critical:
    1. {{IPSummary}} … example:
    2. {{UserSummary}} … example:
  3. Optional: add {{LinkSummary}} for each domain … example:
  4. Optional: If you poke around and find any related domains, list those, too. Don't list them though unless you're certain the same person controls them. One way you can tell: follow the money. If the spammer uses Google ads, the Google ad links will have an embedded referral code prefaced by ca-pub; that's the account Google sends the ad revenue check to.
    1. Here's the link embedded in a Google ad on one spammer's page:
      • http: //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=Bef_BV7S-SJSyNJbazQXI8vGTDfTTtVuKk47WBMCNtwGA6jAQARgBILmehgcoBDgAUP6v0-r-_____wFgybbIh-CjtBCyARR3d3cudGhla GlwaG9wb3N0LmNvbboBCTcyOHg5MF9hc8gBAdoBTWh0dHA6Ly93d3cudGhlaGlwaG9wb3N0LmNvbS8yMDA4LzA4L2Fs YnVtLXJldmlldy1ob29kdHJlYXNvbi1ieS1ueW9pbF8xMy5odG1syAKM_LAEqAMBsAOSlaAGyAMHiAQBkAQBmAQA&num=1&adurl=http:// clickserve.dartsearch.net/link/click%3Flid%3D43000000077783491&client=ca-pub-1294607511457798&nm=4
    2. Alternately, if you can usually click on "Ads by Google" and it will take you to a page about their Adsense program. Once again there's an embedded referral code:
      • http: //services.google.com/feedback/abg?url=http: //www.relianceinsider.com/&hl=en&client=ca-pub-2213215412374142&done=1&adU=+&adT=Reliance+Reliance&adU=++&adT=Reliance+IPO&adU=+++ &adT=Reliance+India+Mobile&adU= ++++&adT=Reliance+Infratel:
    {{LinkSummary}}'s AboutUs.org link takes you to a page that includes bot-produced guesses as to related domains but these are not definitive. That page will also have a "What links here" link in the left column that lists additional suspects. The domaintools link gives more definitive information as to who owns the domain; on the other hand, its "Related Sites" list is usually wrong and a waste of time. Note that tracking down everything with AboutUs.org can be very time-consuming and is very optional.


Here's an example of tracking data I added to a spammer page: [1]. Do not use "subst" with any of these templates. If you don't have much time, at a minimum add a live link.
If the spammer is on his 3rd warning or worse, I list it at WT:WPSPAM. The WikiProject Spam team seeks to identify and stop especially problematic spammers that ignore requests to stop. Our primary tools are the spam blacklist and XLinkBot; blocking usually doesn't do much since spammers often just switch accounts or IPs. WT:WPSPAM is also helpful if you're in a rush and don't want to spend much time on the spammer.
If this is just a first or second warning and the spammer's used no other accounts, I may just use a live link since a full investigation is time-consuming and most spammers stop after one or two warnings. Instead, I spend most of my spam-searching time perusing blocked spam accounts to see if their domains should also be blacklisted: Special:IPBlockList
Thanks for your help. We're covered with spam, so we can use all the help we can get. All the links in those special templates lead to a variety of interesting tools for finding related domains; other spam accounts, etc. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much for this. I'll start using your spam data tagging methods, and I've saved it for future reference! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


thoughts? edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

On this? Given the "china" element I think it is just a spambot type thing. I actually think the sites should be blacklisted but here or Meta? I've done similar in the past. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a spambot. Since China has opened up access to Wikipedia, I've noticed a rise in atrociously written, often naively unsophisticated spam from China. I get the sense that these spammers have had little chance to experiment and find what works on English web sites; many probably have poor English skills. (see the "Dairy" promotion at www.wowgoldshopping.com/dp.jsp)
Also a spambot typically uses an IP and does not open a user account.
Finally, having hung out in Nigerian Internet cafes, I think that in less developed nations Internet abusers are more willing to manually perform tasks since their time is less valuable (monetarily). So in Nigeria, that means manually addressing spam letters. In China, that might mean manually opening accounts and link-spamming blogs and web sites. Seeing that this guy is promoting a gold farming game sweatshop, he clearly has a ton of cheap labor chained to computers.
I suggest a warning unless there are indications there's been more of this or that it's cross-wiki spammed. One potential benefit of warnings is the "education" along with the explanations of our rules. A block may
On the other hand, there's certainly nothing of value in any of these links, so nobody will ever miss these domains -- your call.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
There's a domain, brogame.com, hosted on the same server that's already blacklisted on Meta.[2]
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


And edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Time has gone! This looks a little spammy to me (the images)? Reflecting on the other one - thanks. --Herby talk thyme 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It looks like more of a content and copyright issue than a commercial spam problem. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ship related postings by User:Viliyana89 edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could you take a look and tell me what you think?

Links

The first three links all share the same Google ad-sense account. The primary edits of this user appear to be to add the above external links - but there are some good additions mixed in as well. I'm very suspicious due to three of the sites being closely related, but the mixed-in good edits make me wonder if it could somehow be a well-intentioned user who is making questionable additions of links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


I see you've already dealt with this spammer:
Compare the user name to that on the domain registration for yachtcritic.info.
I found 3 related domains using the AboutUs.org pages:
If you poke around, you may find more.
Definitely spam in my opinion.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! That clarifies it then. Would you object to me copying the above (including your reply) over to WT:WPSPAM? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
sure. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Of which year? edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your talkpage still has a notice saying "I will be off-line much of the time and slow to respond to messages until sometime in August." ... should a year be added, the month changed, or is it an out-of-date notice? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Oy edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just changed a redirect, and upon checking history, realized that it was an edit=sysop redirect. Feel free to revert my change if you feel I overstepped. There is a conversation at User talk:Seicer that led me to the change, I didn't realize it was fullprotected (although, I feel rather stupid, because in that conversation on Seicer's talk, I realize that someone actually even said it was full protected. Dumb of me). Keeper ǀ 76 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. I protected on my own initiative it to prevent unilateral mischief on someone's part given all the POV assaults (from both sides) on our Sarah Palin-related articles. If there's been a discussion and a consensus reached, that's a good reason to make a change. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. With all the arbcomm crap going on right now surround Palin related stuff, I didn't want to do a "unilateral" action. If the article that I redirected to ends up deleted at AFD (it's there now), we'll find a new home for the redirect (or delete it altogether I suppose - if the church ain't notable, surely it's pastor isn't either, I presume). Keeper ǀ 76 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Your tagging Palín for speedy deletion edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

So here's the situation: Thinking that all the entries on Palín were surnames, I moved Palín to Palín (surname). I then realized that I was in error, so I replaced the redirect on Palín with the identical content of Palín (surname), blanked Palín (surname) because the page contained no surnames, and marked Palín (surname) for deletion (Speedy Delete A3).

At that point, having realized my error with the initial page move, what procedure would you have recommended for the removal of Palín (surnames)?

Following this, however, an admin (Pagrashtak) moved Palín (surname) back to Palín and undid my blanking. So in the end, all is well and my error was undone. Still, I'd like to know what the correct way of doing this would be. —  X  S  G  19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure you did anything wrong and it all sounds very confusing. I was unaware of all the other actions you've outlined; when I looked at the article, it was named Palín, not Palín (surname). Page moves don't appear in the article history; you have to look at the logs, which I did not do. My fear was that perhaps you were trying some backdoor method for bypassing our deletion process to get a page deleted. On the other hand, the Palín page seemed pretty innocuous; also something underhanded would have been inconsistent with your reputation as an editor.
I'm sorry to have bothered you with this. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
No worries. It was, indeed, a confusing situation. I suspect that you caught the Palín page right between when Pagnashrak moved it and undid the blanking. The dynamic nature of Wikipedia strikes again! —  X  S  G  20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you shoulda deleted Sarah palin [A. B. (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Sarah palin: High risk Sarah Palin redirect]. Redirects like this are unnecessary, the software takes a searcher to the correct page without them. They annoy the hell outta me. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


FreeHeadset.org AfD vote = KEEP edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I have performed a WP:NAC on the AfD vote for FreeHeadset.org as it was almost out of time and the majority vote was keep. Regards, ∞Fr33kmantalk APW 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks for letting me know. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
NP ∞Fr33kmantalk APW 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeHeadset.org edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I guess I jumped the gun with that remark, I did check your user page for the usual "This user is an Administrator" userbox, but I didn't think to check the logs or, as I just saw, look at the bottom of your user page for the admin category. Oh well, alls well that ends well anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all. Don't worry about it. I figured as much and I was not offended at all. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Palin Mayor Article edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I notice you characterized the Palin Mayor article as "mostly a trash-Palin piece" I've been working on it a bit, and if you could clarify where you have concerns, I'll try to fix it. Best regards...--Paul (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Paul, here's what I wrote on the talk page:
"Take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, in particular the "Undue weight" section. Most if not all the sentences in this article are neutral and referenced. Added all together and they present a very negative picture, one that's at odds with her electoral record and popularity in Wasilla as well as with the newspaper archive I linked to above. Yes, Palin encountered turbulence yet from this article you'd think that was all there was to her time as mayor. "
The local newspaper archive I was referring to can be found here: [3]
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Sarah Palin edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I noticed you protected the redirect Nancy Palin. However, I am asking you if you can unprotect and delete it, as I think it is an attack page on Sarah Palin. I did a google, and I couldn't find anything looking like a reliable source for this, so I think it should be speedied under G10. Thanks in advance. Deamon138 (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I protected a ton of Palin family redirects and did not stop to think about this one. Thanks for catching my oversight. I'm still not sure how "Nancy Palin" is an attack, but in any event, we don't need it and I've deleted it as G1 - patent nonsense in this case. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Editing pages versus editing sections edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please edit individual sections of articles that have a high volume of editing going on, rather than entire articles. That minimizes edit conflicts (both by you and others), and makes it easier for others to see what sections have been changed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder, John. In the last 3 edits, I was either undoing other edits or adding material to the article intro. --A. B. (talk • contribs)


Talk:Palin edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I saw your post on the WP:AN board. If you haven't already ... Please consider closing the "discussions" and archiving the Talk:Palin page. Speedy delete Talk:Palin/Re talk-maintenance actions as a talk page without an article page and may be speedy delete User talk:NoPalinista. Add Electoral history of Sarah Palin, Legal actions filed against the McCain/Palin campaign, User talk:Palin08, Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, and Template:SarahPalinSegmentsUnderInfoBox to your watch list. --Suntag (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi A. B. I finished going through all the Palin items I could find. I listed some items for deletion and took other action. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. -- Suntag (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK:
Mostly, I've been interested in making sure other admins are looking at all the lesser-watched pages and forks lest they turn into hotbeds of incivility or libel. I've been assuming a ton of people are watching the big articles such as Sarah Palin.
Thanks for your work and initiative on this stuff! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I archived Talk:Palin, listed User talk:Palin08 at RFCN, and posted Miscellany for deletion/Sarah Palin redirect talk pages. I think the direct containment portion is up to date, which only leaves monitoring the watchlists and indirect containment issues, such as the wp:point deletion posts I'm seeing in response to the listed Palin pages deletions. Not that big of deal since they've been getting quick keeps. Only two more months to the November 4, 2008 election, then the focus of the work should be cut in half (leaving the "I hate (whom ever is elected)" posts). Best. -- Suntag (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate your leadership on much of this. It's really important work, given the sensitivity and visibility of the topics. Without efforts like yours and those of just a few other editors, our Palin-related coverage (including that of her adversaries) would degenerate into a chaotic melange of unreliable junk, some of it libelous.


about my posts edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Hi, take a look at What Wikipedia is Not. You really shouldn't be posting these links for folks to "check out". As the policy I just pointed out says, we're not a soapbox, a link farm or a blog."

Understandable---in most cases.

However, I at least restrict my posts to those articles that:

(1) have been blocked or re-directed

(2) put in the discussion pages only

and

(3) will not be as heated soon after November

Indeed, it looks like the Sarah Palin article discussion maybe closed and there are still several weeks left to the election.

Yartett (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


User talk:Yartett edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

an RFC may be in order, or a thread at AN/I. We'll see what response our latest coaching efforts bring. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


My Alleged Spam edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"same thing. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote your own agenda."---Dlohcierekim


A.B. and Dlohcierekim,
shouldn't those be Mijnlulinjouwkut's, Corpx's and Chakira calls?!?

After all, it is THEIR user pages.

Huh?!?


What's that template of Chakira's?

DGAFThis user does not give a fuck.


I'm kinda new to Wikipedia,

but is it not enough that I stay away from the articles and article dicussions until I learn some stuff:

I also have to keep away from user's talk pages,

and/or that you savants are permitted to edit other peoples user talk pages?


Very interesting that you can see other people's contributions,

or do you check the histories of a lot of user page discussion histories?


As for spam, the sites I cited are MediaWiki types, a few that have interests not too unlike Wikipedia's.

So I guess the Sarah Palin Barack Obama John McCain pages will remained locked,

perhaps un-editted until after the election when a few of them won't matter a fraction as much.


Today, I was going to spend a few hours working on a catagory for Wikipedia,

but with guys like you around, why bother?

What Wikipedia is not

Seems like it's not a lot of things.

Might I add user friendly?


What other ways do you kill people's interest in Wikipedia?

Hope the both of you have a far more pleasant day than I'm having.

Yartett (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


I'm sorry that my words have left you feeling this way. To get some neutral feedback and clarity, I've request 3rd party opinions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion please on edits by User:Yartett. I encourage you to chip in there. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
By the way, we have a pretty important guideline around here you should be aware of:
While I think my actions were technically correct and you were technically wrong, I'm concerned my approach may have been overly BITE-y.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


webapp edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I see here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008/05#web-app.net_attempting_to_circumvent_via_redirect that you decided to list our competitor websites as "non related" to the "spam". If you look at the version page of the homepage of the competitor ( web-app.org ) you will see that the blocked user monty53 whom started the entire issue (and is blocked on WP) is actually an active developer on the competitor page. Has it appeared to you that maybe it is the competitor whom actually initiated the spam to get web-app.net black listed? און 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Even if I ignore Monty53's role in all of this, it looks like we still have a real problem with spam, incivility and disruption from the other user accounts and anonymous IPs more than sufficient to require blacklisting.
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.[4][5]
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you mind reviewing the four requests that have no reply yet? Thanks! Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, it may take a few days. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

historic66.com edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I seem to see you're someshat involved in classifying a site I own as spam.

Can we talk about this?

I've no intention whatsoever to spam wikipedia, nor is there a need.

But I would like not to be labeled a spammer (I fight spammers on a daily basis, it hurts to be labeled one myself).

I also think there is enough proper and unique content on historic66.com (e.g. the only freely accessible version of a turn-by-turn description) and a forum with many helpful users for would-be travellers. A link would be helpful to them (and the rel="nofollow" wikipedia ads makes no search engine difference anyway.

Perhaps some of those helpful users, perhaps myself, or .. perhaps some of those spammers I fight triggered this. I'm not sure what to be honest.

Also the name route66.netvision.be was an old URL, but I never owned netvision.be and it got grabbed by somebody parking the domain unfortunately [all beyond my control], nor on any werver I own or have control over (there is some outdated info out there, while I had control it' been givign for many years a 301 redirect to the current name) ). This seems to coincide somewhat the actions on wikipedia.

Again I'd like to resolve this, but I'm not sure how to go about it.

Please go easy, I'm a very casual user of wikipedia. Swa (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

See also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caomhin#historic66.com Swa (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please unprotect Track Palin edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please unprotect Track Palin so that the proposed article in the talk page can be moved there. Give it a few days to improve (minimum of 3 days, please but 7 days is more fair). Then you or I can file an AFD on it. Currently, some people who may be anti-Palin are trying to permanently delete the talk page comments (which gives draft language for an article).

The upfront and honourable way to delete an article is AFD, not some other method that is occuring.

You should not judge whether or not to end protection based on the draft article language. You should unpage protect because there has been no vandalism or edit warring. There is a reasonable draft article. An community decided AFD (not you alone) can decide if it is to be deleted.

Thank you for the unprotect which will allow the community to decide, not just one person. Don't assume that I am a Palin fan. I have not yet decided how I would vote if there was an AFD but I know that killing it in other ways in not an upfront way to do it. 903M (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ouch -- so I'm not being "upfront" and "honourable"?
Other admins and I protected probably 20+ Palin-related redirects after the onslaught of pro- and anti-Palin POV-pushers and vandals after McCain announced her selection as his running mate. There were already inappropriate POV-forks being created almost hourly. Furthermore, there were vandalistic alterations of redirects to inappropriate targets (I don't remember the specifics, but it would have been to stuff like "Penis" or "Thief"). So this protection was done purely as a housekeeping measure and it was discussed at WP:AN.
If a community consensus evolves that we need a Track Palin article or that the redirect should point to a different target, then I'll be happy to unprotect. Alternately you can ask another admin to unprotect, referencing this discussion plus whatever page you've established your consensus on.
I must say that I see no enthusiasm for a Track Palin article at either Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Track Palin or Talk:Track Palin. Furthermore, similar articles about the Palin children (or the Palins' ministers) have been deleted for multiple reasons:
  1. Commenters noted that parental notability ≠kid notability
  2. Congregant's notability ≠ pastor's notability
  3. Many had BLP concerns.
  4. It's easier to watch fewer, bigger articles than numerous, smaller articles when the whole Palin genre is getting >1000 edits/day.
Get a consensus and I'll be happy to change the protection. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Please Honor my request for AfD edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Per the AfD policies, I, as original author and primary contributor to this article: Mike Wooten (trooper), have the right to blank this article as a request for deletion. This has all been logged and had consensus in the talk page. Why are you reverting policy? The other suggetion, since 100% of the content was "cloned" in the other article, was to simply redirect this back to the original article that it was split from. Duuude007 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just left you a message on your talk page as you were leaving this one for me. I think you may be confusing AfD and speedy deletion.In this case, the article has to go through AfD, not speedy deletion. Those are two separate processes as I point out on your user talk page. At this point, the rules don't allow speedy deletion because:
  • There have been other editors besides yourself
  • At least one other editor objected to speedy deletion and removed the tag before I came along.
You are welcome, however, to take the article to AfD. If this content is already in another article, that's a good idea, too, since we're better off, quality and BLP-wise to have fewer, bigger articles on many watchlists than lots of little articles nobody's watching. Every Palin-related article is subject to tampering by both anti- and pro-Palin partisans these days. Also, I'm not sure Wooten is notable on his own.
Good luck, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
PS, the AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, gives detailed instructions as to how to list an article for an AfD. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added the AfD, but when it posted, the text I added bugged out the AfD discussion link. could you please fix it? Thanks. Duuude007 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I screwed up my first several AfDs myself -- it's not exactly intuitive. Unfortunately, I'm on the run now (which is why I did not offer to walk you through it earlier). I hate to blow you off, but try the help desk. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Help desk --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Can I hand this off to you? edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey A. B.,Two editors Bigredbus22 (talk · contribs) and Orkie105 (talk · contribs) seem to exist solely for the purpose of adding links to rdujour.com. Most of them have been reverted already and they don't appear to have been re-added to any articles (although I didn't look very carefully). The site itself isn't terribly spammy. I've reverted the most recent ones, but I'm not sure wholesale eradication is warranted. Can I leave this one to your judgement? Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It turns out there's more to this and the domain-owner has ignored other requests. I've listed it for blacklisting:
Thanks for flagging this!
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Admin power abuse edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WP:ANI#Admin power abuse, illegal activity and sockpuppet- Request for arbitration/action.... seicer | talk | contribs 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like that drama had already come and gone by the time I logged on. Thanks for letting me know about it.
I must admit that admin abuse is something I occasionally fantasize about; there have been some trying characters that I have wished I could have abused.
I expect this will continue for a while. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Request an edit edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

at Template:SarahPalinSegmentsUnderInfoBox. Thanks.    Justmeherenow (  ) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have reduced the level of protection from full- to semi-protection. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Western Mining History edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I restored a batch of these links. If memory serves, I posted most of these originally, and have no connection to the site, which is a nice resource. So you may have gotten over-zealous here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pete, I tried to be diligent and careful.
The owner of the site added links to 48 different articles using his main account plus 5 IPs, all of which traceroute to the small town of Bend, Oregon:
Here are the articles; you can check them against the contribution histories above:
  1. 1906 San Francisco earthquake
  2. American Old West
  3. Anaconda, Montana
  4. Aspen, Colorado
  5. Baker City, Oregon
  6. Bisbee, Arizona
  7. Black Hawk, Colorado
  8. Breckenridge, Colorado
  9. Butte, Montana
  10. Central City, Colorado
  11. Concept map
  12. Creede, Colorado
  13. Crested Butte, Colorado
  14. Cripple Creek, Colorado
  15. Deadwood, South Dakota
  16. Eureka, Nevada
  17. Georgetown, Colorado
  18. Globe, Arizona
  19. Gold Hill, Colorado
  20. Goldfield, Nevada
  21. Graphic organizer
  22. Helena, Montana
  23. Idaho Springs, Colorado
  24. Jacksonville, Oregon
  25. Kellogg, Idaho
  26. Lake City, Colorado
  27. Lead, South Dakota
  28. Leadville, Colorado
  29. Miami, Arizona
  30. Mind map
  31. Mining
  32. Ouray, Colorado
  33. Park City, Utah
  34. Philipsburg, Montana
  35. Red Lodge, Montana
  36. Salida, Colorado
  37. Silverton, Colorado
  38. Sumpter, Oregon
  39. Telluride, Colorado
  40. Telluride, Colorado
  41. Tombstone, Arizona
  42. Tonopah, Nevada
  43. Truck camper
  44. Virginia City, Montana
  45. Virginia City, Nevada
  46. Wallace, Idaho
  47. Ward, Colorado
  48. Western United States
I removed links from these articles only. There were 26 other links added by other editors that I left in place:
  • westernmininghistory.com (24)
  • graphic.org (2)
Note that I looked at each one of these other links one-by-one to see who had added them.
In addition to the standard warnings given to single purpose accounts that link to their own sites, I also suggested he get in touch with several Wikiprojects to make them aware of his westernmininghistory.com site as a potential resource.
Finally, while some of his westernmininghistory.com pages are good, some of his stuff is nothing but Adsense-larded junk.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
P.S., Feel free to add back other links as you feel appropriate; I trust your editorial judgement and I very much appreciate all you've added to Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the detailed explanation, and your diligence. I hadn't seen the bad pages. Thanks for the kind words, & sorry to have doubted you! Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Not a problem. I think it's important folks doing link cleanup avoid being link-nazis. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


A note from On edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

Just wanted you to know that your enemy is sleeping (Not to be misunderstood its a quote from Leonard_Cohen song), I have requested a new chance and apologized for my mistakes on irc://irc.gnu.org/wikipedia-en was advised to try editing on simple.wikipedia.org for 6 months and then request a new chance. I hope its ok with you.

If you have better suggestion or think its hopeless anyway, I would accept that, you are most welcome to tell me what you think in person here: irc://irc.gnu.org/web-app

Who ever you are have fun. On —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.128.135 (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On, thanks for the note. I wish you luck on simple.wikipedia. I think you'll be welcome to request a second chance in the future as suggested and the community will give it a fair hearing. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I started deleting all the crap posted elsewhere, I am truly sorry for that too, keep up the good work you are doing. Wikipedia needs you!

See you in 6 months!

On —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.128.135 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Discrepancy on Whitelist Approvals edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I'm new on Wikipedia and have a question for you. I was browsing the URL Whitelist request page and noticed your comment about official band blogs being acceptable sources (which of course makes perfect sense). Why does there seem to be so much discrepancy between admins on what websites are acceptable for a band to choose to use for their blog? I made a request that was denied by two admins because the band hosts their blog on their MySpace page. (That specific case is a non-issue, as other news sites eventually picked up the story and I just sourced them instead...)

I personally do not like MySpace as a social site for personal use, but its recent importance and heavy influence within the music industry simply cannot be categorically denied because of unreliable "standard" user pages. I'm curious why there seems to be such a split between administrators on this issue (specifically regarding official band MySpace pages)... is there not some sort of set of standards that are attempted to be followed?

You seem to have a positive perspective on this issue, so I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. 132.177.70.217 (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to be slow in responding -- I was away.
The current versions of our Verifiability policy and our Reliable sources guideline no longer make an exception for blogs owned by the subject of the article. I don't know when or why this was changed. You may want to raise the question at [Wikipedia talk:Verifiability]]. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B./September_2008&oldid=1139305210"