User talk:Hu12

6,831,535 /Sandboxx

If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks.

“ Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.. ” — WP:TIGERS

---

Welcome

Welcome to the talk page --Hu12 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Regex

I am but a humble worker (while of course being a hacker of international repute ;)). I tend to copy what folk who know better than me do and that is what I did on meta. However as time went by I learnt a bit to stop my regex being sloppy (I had some patient teachers too). There is a sense in which having the admin tools should not allow people to edit such pages. I've fixed a few listings on Meta now that had unplanned effects because the regex was not precise enough. We really only want to block a particular site by and large and the \b both begins and ends the listing. If you check the link I guess the ending one is less necessary but it is possible that it would be needed. Block a xxx.com without \b and you will get xxx.com.au as well for example which may well not be correct(?). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. that makes sense. Will read further. I'm sure I'll have some questions as more complicated expressions show up on he list, however I will bear in mind you are very busy and will not try to interupt your dubious international exploits ;)). hehe --Hu12 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adsense spam?

With your expertise in adsense spam, I wanted to run this by you. Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been posting links to the same "news website" in citations. The site (andhranews.net) is really a directory that reprints news from other outlets without proper references. The site has an abusive amount of advertising including Adsense. The pub for that page also matches another site linked by the user (diff). The user had previously spammed another site (thisdaythatyear.com). Looking at the source for this page gives an adsense pub of 6158899834265448, but when mousing over the the Ads by Google link, the pub is the same as for the two sites previously mentioned: 4636414695604775. If anything, the user just needs to be encouraged to use a different source, but I wanted to see if you had any insight on the relationships between these websites. Thanks. Nposs (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you got one here. Many adsense publishers have several accounts, seems this is one of them. thisdaythatyear.com pub-6158899834265448 Registrant:VIJAY TECHNOLOGIES[1]. vizaginfo.com, pub-4636414695604775, Registrant:VIJAY TECHNOLOGIES[2]. ndhranews.net pub-4636414695604775, (Registration Service Provided By: VIZAGINFO.COM) Registrant:VIJAY TECHNOLOGIES [3]. electionsinfo.com pub-6158899834265448, [4] VIJAY TEHNOLOGIES. Blatent SEO, should be reported. It all ties together. Good work!--Hu12 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an uncommon practice by some [5]--Hu12 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a warning for Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and reverted todays contribs --Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Added, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_spammer--Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Done on Meta as noted elsewhere. Will you take it off the list here? Equally let me know of any developments I guess. I imagine we will be getting quite a few appeals on this one. Thanks for the work you put in, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread (metsguy234)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mistakes need acknowledging, where I've criticized a comment of yours. Apologies if I came over too strong there, but I feel very strongly about this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lulu (publisher)

I noticed you removed the link to an author's Lulu.com page as a commercial link. What is the WP policy on links to Lulu? I see it is linked from the Lulu (publisher) article itself (no brainer there), but I haven't yet found a mention of it in any more general EL policies or discussions. Has it been discussed somewhere? Personally, I think it's a bit of a grey area. The site is commercial, but if it is the printer used by an otherwise notable author, and if the author's page on Lulu.com has info relevant to the article, I think it may be worth linking, especially as we link to other author websites that often have links to where their books can be purchased. Hmmm... - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit confused

I'm a bit confused as to why you've chosen to label me as "an individual associated with the" Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and accused me of posting "multi article linkspam". Care to explain? Picaroon (t) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasnt directed at you, it was an error during a multi article reversion fom links added by IP's and accounts asssociated with the Carnegie Council.--Hu12 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. "\bcceia\.org\b" was removed from the spam blacklist in November, so in theory I should be able to readd the links, right? But I'm getting the spam filter notice, telling me that the "\bpolicyinnovations\.org\b" entry is preventing the readdition of "cceia.org" links. Any idea why? Picaroon (t) 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Worked around the blacklisting. its fixed--Hu12 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AtTask

Hi Hu12,

I wanted to ask your advice on how I can change the article about AtTask to meet criteria. I took out the sentences I had added about AtTask's integration features since they might be interpreted as advertisements or self-promotion.

Also, I found a number of independent sources that have covered AtTask's fairly in-depth: [6], [7], [8], and [9].

I am also happy to expand the article and include more sources. More in-depth Wikipedia articles like Vpmi, 24sevenoffice, and ProjectInsight have even less independent and in-depth references, yet have not been made candidates for deletion.

Vpdjuric (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric

Heliodisplay

Hang on - I think you're reverting to the wrong version. While there clearly is a COI, the COI version is actually more accurate and neutral than the other. For instance, the company name is IO2 Technology, not IO2 technologies; and the version you reverted to contains a bunch of anon-posted and completely unsourced hostile commentary (e.g. "The unit was apparently riddled with flaws due to an immature engineering set up"). Maybe it would be better to revert further back before the edit war started. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to your version. sorry.LOL--Hu12 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

TradeTech has a malformed AfD template?

Hello Hu12. Why would the AfD template on this article point to the AfD of Worldwide Business Research? There is currently no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TradeTech. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple article listing per AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion.." On each of the remaining articles, at the top insert the following:"

{{subst:afd1|PageName}} .."Replace PageName with the name of the first page to be deleted, not the current page name"..wouldent think it, however it make sense.;)--Hu12 20:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your version does seem to follow the rules. My obtuseness caused me to not see the second article; I thought it was just a 'remark', not part of the definition of the AfD. See if you like my slight reformatting; if not, you can revert it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)