User talk:A. B./January 2008

RFARyou might want to be aware of
Igor Berger has initiated an RFAR in which he identifies himself as having been assigned to spam patrolling by you. I thought you would like to know that your name has been mentioned. Risker (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, A.B. I had no idea where that was going to go, and just wanted to ensure you were aware of the way in which your name was being used. I don't think any further comment is required ;-)  --Risker (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Risker thank you for notifying User:A. B. to arbitration request. I have followed admin A.B. instructions User_talk:Igorberger I very much appreciate your flagging this editor. I notice you're involved with SEO topics; we especially like to have white hat SEOs helping us at WikiProject Spam, so if you're interested and have time, please check us out and pitch in.-- A. B. (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Igor Berger (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger WikiPedia Patrolman Authority
A.B. you asked me to patrol WikiPEdia for Spam, which I have been doing. I have noticed Talk:Knol is being social engineered by anon IP user and I have stepped in to do my job, because social engineering is Malware Spam, as defined by McAfee security experts.

We've come to understand that almost any high impact media event is going to be used as a social engineering tool for malware," said Dave Marcus, security research and communications manager at McAfee. "It's such a horrible event, but at the end of the day, it's a very good social engineering tactic." Malware Sites Exploit Bhutto Assassination

Here is more proof of Knol WikiPedia article is being social engineered by Google! http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-knol-looking-at-wikipedias-rival/6158/

When I said on SEJ, "Knowledge is not for sale," a user replied, "I would say everything is for sale these days and Google knows it best!"

If WikiPedia is for sale, and we as Spam patrolmen do not have Authority to do our job protecting WikiPedia, I would like to stop being WikiPedia Spam patrolman! I do not need to be called a Troll by a WikiPedia administrator for doing my job. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry you've run into these frustrations. There's really nothing official or "authorised" about looking for spam and getting rid of it. WikiProject Spam is just an informal, not especially organised group of volunteers. Our general goal is to try to get rid of the least useful, most commercial, most cynically spammed links with the least disruption to our readers and regular editors. We focus on inappropriate links added by spammers. We use these guidelines in judging the appropriateness of links:
 * Reliable Sources Guideline -- for links used "inline" within articles' text
 * External Links Guideline -- for other links


 * Our Spam Guideline defines "spam" slightly differently from other some others' definitions; also take a look at our Conflict of Interest Guideline.


 * As of about a year ago, the English language Wikipedia had about 3 million external links. My own personal estimate is that about a third were inappropriate links. Most of these were "good faith/bad judgement" links added by well-meaning editors, but several hundred thousand were probably added by site-owners seeking traffic from Wikipedia.


 * Most spammers aren't aware of our rules -- that's why we use an escalating series of messages; see:
 * Template messages/User talk namespace


 * We start with nice requests (level 1) and only move to stronger messages if the user continues spamming.


 * We really work hard to avoid conflict and hard feelings.


 * Perhaps as a start, you could work on some of the existing cases already identified at WikiProject Spam.


 * Good luck, Igor -- I hope things run smoother for you going into the future. -- A. B. (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks A. B. I am learning on the job..:) I got my whole body wet today, did not bother with feet first. But sort of getting a hand on things. Sorry to have bothered you! And will work hard upholding my end. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope next holidays a few patrolman are around. Today I feel I need a holiday..:) The Social engineering spammers come out of the wood work when no one is around, to do their dirty work. I am glad with the help of the community a lot of Social engineering Malware was averted. There is no right or wrong way of doing it, you just have to go with your insticts and apply forensic investigation skills. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch list article update email altert
A.B. is there a way to receive an alert by email of what has been added to an article you are watching? I know other WikiMedia projects have this option.

Why I am asking, is that, this can be used as an exploit by someone who signs up with a disposable account and stalks an article or/and an editor. This can be a very destructive Social engineering Malware exploit for the Wikipedia community. A usernetx Trojan horse can create an account and never contribute to the project until there is an oppurtunity for an attack. Igor Berger (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Igor, that is a MediaWiki software feature but it's not implemented on en.wikipedia. -- A. B. (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank God, for that! Igor Berger (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thanks! -- A. B. (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bases for beliefs
I can't speak for Jim or OM, but I suspect that one could come to the conclusion that that was likely based on a quick look at his editing pattern. I remember the dispute with VO. When you are engaged in a multi-page dispute with a group of editors, its very apparent who edits all day. When someone says that they are in the Air Force, and has pictures of themselves in uniform on their user page, it's easy enough to figure out that they are probably editing from work. It's one of those things you figure out when you interact with people a lot. I have always known that Jim doesn't edit from work, although until now I thought it had more to do with private virtue than employer regulations.

And when you see someone doing something that you know can get them in trouble, the correct thing to do is to drop them a heads up - whether you like them or not. Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just saw your conversation with Swat. By the way - Jim's email said "Do you have permission?"  He didn't say "you don't have permission".  OM's comments relate to his take on the situation - that if he is aware of what he believes to be violations, that he is legally obligated to report them.  He isn't obliged to snoop, and chose not to do so.  Guettarda (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're interested, I got the answer back from the JAG, it's on my talk page. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Swatjester, thanks for checking that out and for your contribution at Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence‎. -- A. B. (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I really think that this was a stupid issue that got blown out of proportion, and if everyone could just step back, drop the whole thing and stop yelling and threatening each other with what they claim they are obligated to do, we can get back to editing. If you're (collective you) really certain you have some sort of obligation, than do it. My guess is that no IG complaint will ever materialize, certainly not cross-service. That's rarer than rare, even for places where you can't shit without hitting the word "joint". Thus, we're putting out an imaginary fire here. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, regarding the editing hours issue, take a look at my comment on the evidence page as well as Swtajester's comment about military hours and Internet usage. -- A. B. (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding hours, it's a matter of intent, not fact. What was Jim's intent, how did he read the situation.  Work hours aren't the major issue - distribution of edits is.  If I see someone editing over an 18-hour period on a regular basis, I could conclude that either (a) they aren't working full time, or (b) they are editing at work.  Regardless of job.  On the other hand, if their editing is bimodal, spaced by 8-10 hours, I'd guess that they are editing before and after work.  Back in the days when I edited a lot, I would try to guess someone's pattern and time zone, just for the fun of it.  It really isn't hard to do, and it doesn't require any sort of prying.  Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand the context of the original e-mail -- were VO and Jim62sch already in a dispute? How did Jim62sch come to be e-mailing VO? -- A. B. (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks !
Thanks for adding such comprehensive spammer tracking info. on User_talk:76.16.242.32. I've never seen the likes of this before, I assume that admins have some neat tools. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks.


 * Actually, some others and I developed those tools when I wasn't an admin, so you don't need to be an admin. Here are the templates:
 * spamlink
 * IPSummary
 * UserSummary


 * I use the various links those templates produce to find what other accounts have added the same links and what other related domains we should be watching for.


 * Tracking and dealing with the bigger, more organized and crafty spammers is actually pretty interesting -- sort of like detective work. We're short handed at WikiProject Spam so feel free to join in the fun. -- A. B. (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS Most admins probably aren't aware these tools exist. Ours is sort of a specialized craft around here.


 * I will seriously consider joining, I enjoy detective work, my trouble is that I get hugely frustrated when I percieve that others don't treat spammers as the threat that I do. Consistent low level spamming seems to be tolerated. When the good guys are made to jump through endless hoops to prove their case, the spammers have won afaic. I don't know if thats just my warped view of things ? Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Famicom World
Hello, I am the webmaster of Famicom World. I noticed that you added my website (I can't say the URL because it doesn't let me on wikipedia) to the "MediaWiki blacklisted links". I don't know what exactly that stuff means, so is there a reason why you added the link to my site to that list? Thank you. FamicomJL (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me the domain, minus the "http" part? I'll look into it. -- A. B. (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops... yeah I should've tried that, my bad. www.famicomworld.com Thanks and regards, FamicomJL (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We're supposed to log all blacklist additions. Here's my log entry with 11 domains for blacklisting and here's the actual entry with 12 domains; the extra one was yours. I goofed.


 * adventuresoflolo.com, smb3.com, bowsershrine.com, kongcountry.com and mariopartyds.com were persistently spammed. I had been looking at related Nintendo sites to make sure any with similar registrations were also blacklisted. Apparently I crossed yours off one list but not off the other.


 * You are not allowed to add links to your own site to our articles -- see the Conflict of Interest Guideline. I'm happy to correct my mistake and remove your domain from the list but only if you promise to not to add it to articles yourself (talk pages are OK). It's OK for others to add to articles just not the site owner. -- A. B. (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad for not seeing this... Yes, I shall not add the link to my site to the article. Thank you. FamicomJL (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed. Thanks for your patience with my mistake. For your records, here the removal diff and here's the discussion page entry:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (permanent link)
 * I'm sorry I goofed with this. -- A. B. (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Heraldry Online
I'm not too sure about all the Wiki protocols but it seems that the website heraldry-online.org.uk is deemed a spam site. Is that correct and if so why? --Heraldic 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added that to the discussion because of the prior discussion. It looks like you've worked out this question with Hu12 -- if he's happy and you're happy, I'm OK. -- A. B. (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

themartialist
Funny..:)

Rub on rub off... Igor Berger (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he is missing a few!
 * Ministry of Disinformation Troll
 * BearClaw Troll
 * FuBar Troll
 * Evangelist Troll
 * Mc'D Troll
 * Superman Troll
 * Spiderman Troll
 * Transformers Troll
 * Red Ridding Hood Troll
 * The British are Coming Troll
 * Apocalypse Troll
 * Nobel Troll
 * Make my Day Troll
 * Terminator Troll
 * Eraser Head Troll

Will try to come up with a few more funny one's. Maybe we can add them to our Troll article or even build a new article page to fit them all in one rubber room..:) Igor Berger (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't go adding stuff willy-knilly to Troll -- it's an encyclopedia article. Perhaps you can work on an essay about trolls on one of your user subpages? -- A. B. (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks A. B. sounds like a great idea, and being that I know so much about about the subject, it will probably come to be a master piece! I hope it is not percieved as WP:COI, Igor Berger (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will title it, The Ancient Art of Trolling! Did you know Trolls originated from Russia? Igor Berger (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Igor, I never knew that. -- A. B. (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comments
''Orangemarlin is a former Navy doctor (a staff corps officer, not an actual line officer) who did a tour of duty 20 to 25 years ago when he was presumably in his late 20s or early 30s. He hasn't been on active duty since that time. He is or was on the Inactive Reserve list (most officers go off the list after a few years). The Inactive Reserve is truly inactive for those members not immediately needed -- there have been people on the Inactive Reserve list that have gone without so much as a postcard from Uncle Sam during their time on the list. Based on his own self-description about the fit of his uniform and the lack of VCRs and computers when he was on active duty, he clearly has had little or no involvement with the military for a very long time. Now, after all this time as a civilian, through wars, disasters and crises, he suddenly hears the clarion call of duty to his country and intervenes in the Jim62sch case with comments to the effect that he has a pressing duty to report an active duty senior NCO to the military for supposed inappropriate editing of Wikipedia to the military.

And this rush to uphold military law and order has nothing to do with Orangemarlin's close relationship with Jim62sch or their earlier with VO over a fair use image. (Note for instance this ) -- A. B. (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)''

Since this is done, a decision has been rendered, I saw nothing involving me, and, frankly, NOTHING, was settled, let me respond to your attacks, assumptions, and lack of good faith, none of which I care about, but before you go forward making attacks, assumptions and lacking good faith in your next vendetta, you'll be better prepared. First, I was in the US Navy for over 12 years, and have been called up several times up through 9/11, after which I was placed on inactive reserve. Apparently, you didn't quite know me as you represented yourself in your attacks. Sorry to disappoint you. The military has a pressing need for physicians, so I have allowed myself to be used frequently.

Yes, I was in Medical Corps, and not a line officer, because I have no qualifications to be a line officer. Since you appear to once again know so much about the military, I guess you have read the rules that physicians have no authority whatsoever in the military. We don't have to obey orders nor can we give orders. I wish I knew that long ago, because I would have been much more of an ass to Admirals than I already was.

And your comment that my call of duty disappeared. I'm not going to dignify that attack at all.

Everything you wrote above was insulting, denigrating, and mean-spirited. Your attacks against my person and my background is unacceptable. You totally lack any facts about me, since I do not give out details about myself, so your assumptions were insulting, denigrating and mean-spirited in more ways than you can imagine. You may apologize if you have any honor, your choice. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, here goes:
 * 1."let me respond to your attacks, assumptions, and lack of good faith"
 * A perusal of my edit history throughout this matter will show that I started out with disagreement and concern but still believed you were editing in good faith. It was only with your increasing stridency and a review of your earlier history that I lost faith in your motives.
 * 2. '""but before you go forward making attacks, assumptions and lacking good faith in your next vendetta, you'll be better prepared"''
 * I don't see that sort of behaviour in my edit history; neither did 86 other editors just 4 weeks ago.
 * Apparently, you've missed my commentary on the lack of quality with respect to RfA's.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3. "First, I was in the US Navy for over 12 years, and have been called up several times up through 9/11"
 * I apologize for saying: "He hasn't been on active duty since that time" This was based on my reading of your comment that when you were in the Navy, there were no DVDs, no Internet, etc. That appeared to date your service to the 1980s only.
 * 4. "Apparently, you didn't quite know me as you represented yourself in your attacks."
 * You're right. As I read over all the stuff you wrote about the American military, I misinterpreted your remarks about your service after the 1980s based on your description of the technology around you.
 * 5. "Since you appear to once again know so much about the military,"
 * I know what I read and hear about the American military -- and my understanding was reinforced by what others with recent service wrote. It was also reinforced by the research I did during this dispute on officer training for American Navy doctors, etc. It's apparent many others disagreed with your picture of the way things work.
 * 6. "I guess you have read the rules that physicians have no authority whatsoever in the military. We don't have to obey orders nor can we give orders."
 * You got me there. I truly never knew this. I thought they could give orders related to medical matters. I should also note however:
 * This seems inconsistent with your remark that you would order miscreants to swab the deck.
 * This independence of authority makes your insistence on reporting someone in another service for misuse of government property (in the absence of proof) still the more puzzling.
 * You missed my sarcasm. You implied that a line officer has more of something (not sure what you were getting at) than a staff officer.  In the military, an officer is an officer.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7. "The military has a pressing need for physicians, so I have allowed myself to be used frequently."
 * I appreciate your service and I know everyone in with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan do as well. Many physicians could have bailed out earlier along the way. I also understand this probably comes at a financial cost to you.
 * I'm fairly well off. I don't need your false sympathy.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 8. "And your comment that my call of duty disappeared. I'm not going to dignify that attack at all."
 * I apologize. I was wrong.
 * 9. "You totally lack any facts about me, since I do not give out details about myself"
 * Actually you made a number of assertions about yourself during this affair to reinforce your authority. I based my comments on a close reading of what you wrote.
 * Your strenuous assertion of your so-called "obligation" to report VO for criminal behaviour (based on zero proof) showed you're willing to play very hard ball in the absence of facts.
 * And you better understand my obligations than I do? Interesting.  I'll come to you for advice on my career (wherever it is) henceforth.  Thank you.  Do you want to be paid for this service, or are you willing to do it pro bono?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 10 "Everything you wrote above was insulting, denigrating, and mean-spirited"
 * I disagree. I believe it was relevant to the discussion based on everything you'd written and the assertions you made. It was factual with the exception of the mistake I made above, which was based on your own comments.
 * 11 "You may apologize if you have any honor, your choice."
 * Where I see I'm wrong, I will promptly admit it as I've done above.
 * I wish you could do this; I think you need to make amends to many, starting with the active duty serviceman you went after.
 * You must be kidding. I was going to ask the same of you, in your incessant attacks on me.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally
 * 1. I believe your characterization of the way things really work in American and similar military services profoundly incorrect in terms of super-tight discipline, Internet use, reporting others in other services, etc. These services are primarily task- and performance-oriented, especially when deployed.
 * You're wrong. Sorry.  Since it's a matter of interpretation, and you're basing your comments on SwatJester's rather jaded view of what he's seen, I think you're assuming too much about what you know versus what I know.  When two individuals have dissimilar viewpoints, then good faith implies we both give each other the right to misinterpret the facts.  The fact is I have NO tolerance of stealing government property.  Am I tough.  You bet.  Am I wrong?  Apparently you do.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. Everything I've read or heard has stated that the backbone of the American military is its pool of senior NCOs. Military historians have written this repeatedly. Generals, admirals, colonels and captains say this all the time. I find the notion that an officer would make implied threats against a senior NCO on intermittent combat duty based on editing Wikipedia just downright appalling, especially when it has its roots in an earlier editing dispute. Talk about "insulting, denigrating and mean-spirited"!
 * 3. You are so quick to accuse others of bad faith. I won't even bother to inventory all your instances of bad faith in this affair; your edits speak loudly for themselves.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You should resign your adminship for such spurious personal attacks, for your lack of assumption of good faith, and for your general mean-spirited remarks against my person.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you've made your points. Where I was wrong, I acknowledged it and made corrections. I responded to your other points. You in turn responded to my comments with more of the same. I'd say I still disagree with 90% of what you've written here and elsewhere. I think it's time to just agree to disagree. -- A. B. (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I do agree with that!!! Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS:
 * My comment about appreciating your service was genuine and not meant as sarcasm. Perhaps money's not an issue for you but I'm aware that it is for many doctors and small businesspeople in the Reserves which is why I said something.
 * I also appreciate your efforts to maintain the integrity of the evolution pages.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the whole point of that attack (given the results of the whole process was to show, at least to me, that it was an attack gone bad) on Jim62sch was as a result of a battle at Intelligent design. Whatever you think of my assessment of this whole situation, please assume that I really believed in what I believed.  I let the discussion about myself get out of hand, because I did not state my point clearly, then shut my freaking mouth.  I was rather ticked off at what you were implying about me, but I'm glad you realized it too.  The rest of it, as I said, is a matter of interpretation, and I'm not mad at you at interpreting things differently than I.  Are we good?  Or do we have to share a single-malt scotch and a medium-rare steak?  Or sushi?  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're good Orangemarlin. Cheers, -- A. B. (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW
So, you give this sock, User:Happy Couple2, good faith, but not me. Grumble. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I had very little faith one way or the other -- it looked like a possible drive-by, especially given the two HappyCouple accounts' edit histories. If he had something to say, I wanted him to say it rather than be coy about it. That or withdraw his comment.


 * You'll note that I did not take his bait to go ask Filll myself.


 * I was unimpressed with the tenor of Filll's remarks during the whole affair but he deserves a fair shake just like everyone else. -- A. B. (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I thought you were real thoughtful to welcome him to Wikipedia. -- A. B. (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just trying to be nice. I don't want him to feel as though his 15th account would be ignored.  And just so you know, I don't have a magical Checkuser, but I had to laugh that his first edit was an attack on Filll, then he makes a bunch of edits to Buffalo related articles.  It is kind of silly.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Me, I'll welcome anyone – if nothing else it suggests they look at policies :) Have replied to your email, things get a bit confusing when we're actually at UTC /GMT here in winter, but not in summer time. Have to go now for a short while, thanks, .. dave souza, talk 14:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreal Royal
Please identify what specifically on the site you believe is "harassment". Note that even sites which violate copyright, if they "clean up their act", are subject to un-blacklisting. A compelling argument should be made if permanent blacklisting is to stand. Wjhonson (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that a previous version of the site attacked Wikipedia editors. Is this true? -- A. B. (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was privately sent a copy of the page as it had once existed. I see nothing on it that would constitute "harassment" as a factor in black-listing.  I do note, that Hu12 although perhaps an otherwise exemplary admin might have a WP:OWN issue on this article.  See where he started the article diff-here.  I feel it's a tad inappropriate for him to be acting on the black-list regarding this same article.  The page in question, does have criticism of the claim of this purported King of Man.  The page is in regard to his claim, and what weight it has or not, citing sources for who the actual Sovereign of Man would be or should be.  In my mind it doesn't drift into any sort of harassment, but rather restricts itself to criticism of the claim.  At any rate, the page no longer exists, and since we un-blacklist sites that remove copyrighted material, there is precedent for un-blacklisting.  In particular our policy states that "if a site cleans up its act" it can be un-blacklisted.  I feel this site has done that, at least in regards to the particular page in question.  There are other pages which do criticize this purported King of Man in regards to his supposed descent and claims.  Seems perfectly acceptable to me. Wjhonson (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (393 intermediate revisions not shown). Much like the assertions you make, there quite a bit missing. Please explain. I fail to see the connection your illustrating. since you have copy on hand, are there attacks on Wikipedia editors? --Hu12 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not in the sense that would be used to black-list a site. There is a criticism of the motives and methods of David Howe, which is not surprising since he is trying to make his claim and make it stick.  A person who is that aggressive would be inclined to be an aggressive editor, and the page as it was, only points out those points.  To me that is not an "attack" of the sort we don't like, in fact, it's the kind of helpful assistance that we *do* like.  One editor pointing out where another editor is abusing or attempting to abuse the system.  Like I stated or implied, criticism of another editor is not harassment, and criticism of a public figure like David Howe, is not a blacklistable offense.  IMHO. Wjhonson (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wjhonson, it looks like there's been further discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Please understand several things:
 * We have certain content rules. If I set myself up as the Duke of Hazard and get enough notoriety to meet Wikipedia's Notability Guideline for Biographies, then that's enough to have an article. It doesn't make much difference whether editors like me or whether I'm a good guy.
 * If someone persists in adding a link that's not wanted, it's going to get blacklisted.
 * If a site attacks our editors, it's going to get blacklisted. That's true whether or not the editor is a good guy or not. We don't stop these sites from making these attacks -- it's their prerogative within the very loose bounds of libel laws. But we do choose not to link to them -- that's our prerogative. If you care to wade through the traffic on wikipedia mailing list, you'll see that the unofficial senior leadership (long-time admins, Jimbo Wales, etc) spend a lot of time on the issue of "attack sites". A bit too much, I sometimes think, but I then I have a very thick skin. Bottom line, we're very sensitive to this issue.
 * We're even more sensitive about things having to do with the biographies of living people. Any sources must absolutely be reliable.
 * Take a look at the Reliable Sources Guideline. Unreal Royal does not meet our very specific requirements for what's "reliable" for encyclopaedic purposes since it's self-published material.
 * It's quite likely that, at a personal level, Herby, Hu12 and I all have more sympathy for unreal-royalty than for those whose claims it questions (at least we did before folks got so techy). Nevertheless, we are supposed to be servants of the broader community and upholders of the project's editorial standards.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. If you check my user-page you will see that I've been here quite a while. I'm well aware of the rules on Reliable Sources since I helped create them. The site you call an attack site, is not in fact an attack site. It is a site of a fellow medieval-genealogy scholar. He mentioned to me, on the soc.medieval newsgroup that he had been blacklisted. He cites, on his site, some of the most relevant sources on this issue. Whether his site is an RS or not, isnt' a call to blacklist it. In addition, sites repeatedly added are not regularly blacklisted simply for that reason, but rather the issues are first discussed. It does not appear that the normal procedures were done here. I'm asking you to review the situation, without taking for granted that it was handled properly. I do not believe it was handled properly. Rather it seems it was handled by an admin who him-or-her self is deeply invovled in the content issues of the article. I'm asking for a fair hearing, without *force*. Since you have agreed that you yourself have not in-fact seen the "attack" page, I'm asking for you to consider that the reaction was extreme and the matter should be re-opened. Wjhonson (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I knew you were an established editor with a long track record. I'm sorry if I sounded like I was talking down to you. I understand others involved with all of the Isle of Mann disputes are reading this page which is why I spelled things out in greater detail than I normally would have. If it's any consolation, I hate to type.


 * Having worked with Hu12 on a wide range of issues over the last year, I have a lot of confidence in his fairness. Knowing Hu12, I'm pretty sure he doesn't really care who rules Man -- he just wants a decent article.


 * It looks like the topic of links has been aired a fair amount already:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008
 * with broader issues of acceptable sources thoroughly flogged at:
 * Talk:David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)
 * and the whole thing is about to get beaten to death in public at:
 * Requests for arbitration
 * Having just wasted many hours in the last week in another ArbCom case, I wish you, Hu12, the purported King of Man, and Chiarn Vanninagh herself the best of luck and patience in this one. -- A. B. (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but all of that is a seperate issue from whether a site should or should not be blacklisted. As you can see HU12 has a WP:COI and possibly WP:OWN on this topic, since he started the page, *and* is a regular editor of the page.  I don't have the kind of faith you do, that this matter has been corrently rendered, and since there has been no evidence of any kind presented, and whatever evidence there may have been at one time, is evidently no longer, I can see no reason to retain the site on the blacklist.  The blacklist was never meant to necessarily be a permanent situation, otherwise we'd have no "removal" section in the first place.  Since there is a removal section, that means there must be reasons why a site can be removed.  For example sites which violate copyright can be blacklisted, but *if* they "clean up their act" meaning getting rid of the copyright material, they can be removed from the blacklist.  This situation is exactly identical to that scenario.  I'm sure you agree.  Since the site is owned by a fellow Wikipedian, he should be given the benefit of a good faith assumption in that regard. Wjhonson (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for your help with the westchestertowns.com link spam. --24fan24 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Thanks for reporting it. -- A. B. (talk)

Thanks for editing my page
Truck Camper. You deleted a spammer. Actually it is not really a spammer as such. The link was to a Truck Camper Forum, but it is run by a Truck Camper Dealer & is not very active. The motivation is adding it was probably more to attract people to the dealership than provide info. Anyway, thank you for deleting it. There is a note on that page now re external links that I do not understand. All the links currently there are of value, & appropriate. Maybe you could examine & let me know what the problem is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beddows1 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are way too many links as Will Pittenger pointed out to you earlier. Take a look at these:
 * WP:External Links
 * Spam Event Horizon
 * Wikipedia is not a Linkfarm


 * You really want no more than 5 or so links in the entire External Links section. You can always point folks to the appropriate page on DMOZ for all the rest of the links. DMOZ is to online link directories what Wikipedia is to online encyclopaedias. Here's a potential page to look at:
 * http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Automotive/Recreational_Vehicles/


 * You've put a lot of work into this article -- you may want to look at getting it ready for recognition as a "Good Article". Only about 3,000 of Wikipedia's 2,000,000 articles meet the standards and I think you've probably already done much of the hardest work, which is content. -- A. B. (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Couple of bits
Firstly this. Similar page on Meta & deleted - not sure quite what the policy is here (most places I'd delete it but...).

Equally when next on Meta can you check this one. It is one of those unlogged ones.... and another opinion would be great. Hope all is well - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

209.160.28.45
Hi A. B. The OP page probably isn't the best place to discuss this. As suspected, all the IPs accept connections but exit through one single IP address. I suspect this IP is interchangeable, that it will change in the future, and that the other IPs are not used for much else. I'll keep checking if they are open as exits, but they don't currently appear to be. Finding entrance IPs for exit IPs is like going through a maze blindfolded. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * zzuuzz, thanks for looking into this.


 * You're right, the other peacefire.org IPs I reported all exit right now through 209.160.28.45. Unless you think otherwise, I intend to leave the others blocked as possible replacements 209.160.28.45.


 * Note that I made some earlier reports yesterday about open proxies that ClueBot said were not open; this despite my using them 30 minutes earlier -- I wonder if ClueBot needs a little tweaking? -- A. B. (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a short reply on the page. PHP proxies need a human, not a port scan. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Grumpy
I am not. JeLuF might feel grumpy. But that's fine, we can live with that :-) Cheers and thank you for the supportive note. Anthere (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I never meant you were grumpy. I think you have been incredibly patient, hard-working, long-suffering and diligent in your role on the board over the last year. I can imagine there were times when you did not look forward to boarding the plane to Tampa, but you've hung in there and for that I am very appreciative. When your kids get a little older and ask what you ever did with your life, you can point them to Wikipedia and tell them you had a big piece of it at at a time of major transition. That's pretty big.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit lost

 * Hello, I'm looking for information on how to transpose the source code of the "citation" system used on Wikipedia (as opposed to the [___] external link tags) for wiki protocols on other websites, but I don't know what to search for or who to talk to. I was wondering if you could help, if not with the issue at hand than with advice on where I might look. Thank you for your dedicated and hard work to this community project. Terek (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't fully understand your question. If you want to add a citation to a Wikipedia article, try these templates: Citation templates. If you want to do more, then I don't know enough to help you other than refer you to Help desk.


 * Good luck, -- A. B. (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

About the comment "Eleland is a nasty piece of Work"
Context:

Please do not describe another editor as "a nasty piece of work"

''Hi. We have some rules about civility here on Wikipedia. Describing another editor as "a nasty piece of work" and saying he needs to be "brought down" gets in the way of building a neutral encyclopaedia. It's also kind of mean-spirited when you think about it. --A. B. (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)''


 * Your comment on my page is quite right. I'll speak to that pesky friend of mine who keeps using my IP address without my approval. I'll tell him not to do it again and not to falsely accuse people that don't agree with him of being sock puppets and not to deliberately misquote other editors to undermine them and not to create fake consensus to engineer deletion of articles that don't fit with his politics. I'll do it right away. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Adon Emett (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 06:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Block
The block was for anonymous IP's. While it is obvious that Adon Emmet is the IP user, there is no problem with his registering. The only problem would be if he continues to edit inappropriately, which as of now, he has not. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You were the blocking admin; if you're satisfied, then I'm OK with this. I must say, however, that I don't think that this edit bodes well for the future. -- A. B. (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that was before I spoke with him; regardless, if it happens in the future that is undoubtedly grounds for measures to be taken. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Thanks for that - it is a very clouded issue. I feel very bad about accusing Avraham of sockpuppetry but I wanted to keep it simple and say the persons who were supporting him were his socks - but then I looked at it more and I realy really don't think so but I don't wish to continue to fling mud around so inaccurately :-( --Matilda talk 06:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising the check user. I am not sure that we are any the wiser what is going on but I hope it settles down and the closing admin of the AfD can see through it all.  Regards--Matilda talk 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Matilda, I appreciate and respect your backing down and "eating crow" with regards to Avraham. Editors and admins sometimes make regrettable mistakes (I know I have) and the measure of them is how they subsequently handle it when it becomes clear they made a mistake. I wish more people just fessed up and apologized as you did. I hope I will when I screw up sometime in the future. -- A. B. (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RaveHaven-related spam stuff
Thanks for helping out with my nomination of the latest RaveHaven spam domain! Did I miss something in the instructions (have they changed in the last month, in other words)? Or were you just adding stuff? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You did fine. I just like to poke around and find what else there is before I blacklist something. Thanks for reporting this.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I may have to get some of those glow-in-the-dark gloves they're selling on their website.


 * No! Their spam will have been successful then! :P Thanks for replying; cheers! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Vices
Thanks AB. Vice asked me to change some of the post on the Whitelist. --Petebertine (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

seo
Hi

I added a reference to http://www.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au/Content_Common/pg-guide.seo on the Leadership Development page that you removed with a note about SEO sites I didn't understand.

The Leadership Development Guide is an well researched synthesis of accepted best practices in leadership development, freely available to all and published on the Australian Leadership Development site. The Centre is an educational research organisation (hence the .edu site) who seeks to enhance the understanding and practice of leadership in modern organisations. We conduct research and publish evidence-based knowledge amidst a sea of unsubstantiated pop-psychology. Our programs fund this work. I note references to the Center for Creative Leadership were not removed (not should they be as they to exist to promote evidence-based information on leadership) yet cannot see why the above reference was deleted.

Thanks Shaun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.204.79 (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry from Ed O'Loughlin
Dear AB

I was trying to send you a note but I'm new to this and I think I may have trashed part of your talk page. If so, I hope you have ways of undoing the mess.

I was just trying to thank you for your work in deleting the attack article against me. If I'd known that so many level-headed people were looking into the matter I'd probably have stayed out of it myself. I was flattered a couple of years back when somebody started an entry for me but it became very unbalanced last December and I was glad to see the back of it.

Thanks again. I'm impressed by the work you and others put in.

Yours

Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed O'Loughlin (talk • contribs) 08:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bar chart
Please revert this diff. The talk page is the place where we tell people to suggest links with WP:COI problems. And I don't have COI problems. I will take this to WP:ANI if necessary.

Also, this site can be used by the Graphics Lab, and others, for Wikipedia chart graphic creation. Feel free to block the people (and their anonymous IPs) with the WP:COI problems (after warning them), but not people creating illustrations for Wikipedia. By blacklisting the site you are blocking wikipedia illustrators from using the site, and telling others about it.

I have already recommended this online charting tool to others for wikipedia illustration purposes. Feel free to run checkuser tests of me to be sure I do not have COI problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to remove the entire domain from the blacklist since it continues to be abused. I'm perfectly happy to whitelist specific qtcharts.com pages for established editors such as yourself. And as for checkusering you, why on earth would I do that? And why are you talking about ANI? Our goal (or at least my goal) is to keep our spam mitigation and prevention work as frictionless as possible for our established editors.


 * As for the edit on the talk page, I did not remove any links -- I just disabled the links by putting a space in the URL so that our software doesn't read it as a live link and lock up the page: http:// qtcharts.com/?g=hist Editors can still see and discuss various qtcharts.com links.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was discussing that online tool on the talk page. People can't make up their own minds about the issues discussed there if they can't look at the online tool themselves.


 * It is a violation of WP:TALK to change the comments of other editors on a talk page except in exceptional circumstances. I don't believe you have come up with one of those exceptional circumstances. I, and others, should not have to ask permission to discuss and access previously-accessible links on a talk page. That is what a talk page is for.


 * If you have blacklisted a site, then all future links added for that site will be blocked, both in articles, and talk pages, and people will know right away when they try to add the link. Many people, though, will not notice retroactively deactivated links. Going back retroactively to deactivate links is a violation of WP:TALK, WP:AGF, and common courtesy. I added the link in good faith on the talk page, and I do not have a conflict of interest (COI). You are blocking my discussion of an issue.


 * You need to balance spam fighting with common sense and common courtesy. Something sorely lacking among many spam fighters. Are you also going to go back and deactivate or delete links added to gtcharts.com in articles that have been added with the consensus of the non-COI editors of that article? It makes just about the same amount of sense as deleting/deactivating it on talk pages.


 * It seems that some spam fighters do little else on wikipedia besides fight spam, and many seem to completely lose perspective, and seem not to understand other guidelines on wikipedia. WP:COI conflicts by some spammers does not override the right of non-COI editors to add a link to an article or to a talk page. I, as a non-COI editor, previously added the gtcharts.com links to the talk page, and so you do not have a right to deactivate or remove it.


 * I believe where a link has already reached the point of being discussed on a talk page, then the spam admins should go the route of adding that particular link to the whitelist. It takes less effort than going around and deactivating the link in articles, talk pages, graphics help pages, etc.. And you will offend far fewer people.


 * Just because some overzealous promoter pushes a link does not mean it is a bad link. It can still be a good link.


 * Has anybody at spam central followed up on my idea of trying to get a guideline passed that says that anonymous editors are no longer allowed to add links to external link sections of articles? This would be a much better way to avoid 90% of these blacklist problems, and would lessen the spam-fighting problem at least 90%, too. If everybody has the power to remove links added by anonymous editors, then they would all have to go through the talk page. The problem is a lot easier and fairer to deal with on talk pages, rather then through blacklisting whole sites, and the massive problems and ill feeling that can cause.


 * Have you suggested that the MediaWiki software be changed so that the blacklist does not apply to previously-added links? And to talk pages? People can't decide whether to ask for the whitelisting of a link if they can't access the linked page.


 * You wrote: "Our goal (or at least my goal) is to keep our spam mitigation and prevention work as frictionless as possible for our established editors." I suggest you also have a look at User talk:Hu12/Archive5. Hu12 is an admin.


 * I also rewrote this section on my user page:
 * User:Timeshifter


 * I thought of something else. We could create a guideline that disallows anonymous editors from suggesting external links, too. Adding or suggesting external links would be a privilege of membership. This way all editors would be working with spam fighters. Because any editor could delete links added to the external links section, or to talk pages, by anonymous editors.


 * For many spam fighters the only contact they currently have with non-spam-fighting editors is when they receive complaints. With this guideline we would be working together more instead of arguing in many cases.


 * With this guideline it would be rare to have to blacklist whole sites. The amount of spam being added would be far smaller, and easy to stop by blocking registered users.


 * Currently, the edit window says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."


 * We could add something like this to the edit window for articles: "To avoid possible spam the addition of links to the external link sections of articles by anonymous editors can be reversed by any registered editor."


 * For talk-page edit windows we could have something like this: "To avoid possible spam promotion any registered editor can remove comments by anonymous editors suggesting the addition of links to the external link sections of articles."--Timeshifter (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a lot of time now to respond, so I'll come back to your comments later in the next day or so. In the meantime, I will respond to the comments you added in the last 12 hours to your talk page about "spam fighters".
 * The only qtcharts.com links that I removed from articles had been freshly added by and, both of whose only edits were qtcharts.com link additions.
 * We have a series of graduated warnings that editors can follow for spam just as they do for vandals. You'll find the first warning very mild. We also have an even milder welcomespam warning. There's no obligation to follow the series starting with level 1; if the link addition is clearly made in very bad faith, then I may start with a level 2. (For instance, spamming through an open proxy is a dead giveaway of a professional spammer very familiar with our rules).
 * I'd be hard pressed to find where I've been BITEy with newcomers unless they've gotten multiple warnings. In some cases, those warnings are spread across multiple accounts and IPs. You're welcome to peruse my edit history and draw your own conclusions.
 * In most cases, I only get involved after there's a complaint and after the person's gotten multiple requests/warnings to stop.
 * I sometimes add tracking data to pages of editors someone else has spammed. I have my own private code so I can follow up later to look for any subsequent incidences of spam. Where you see 5-5, that means the person was blocked and I agreed with the block; 4-3 means they got a 4th level warning but that I would have only given them a 3rd level warning. You'll find that I am probably less BITEy than the community at large. People who spam are human and I try not to forget that.
 * I prefer blacklisting over blocking after a person exhausts warnings. It's a quiet way to protect the encyclopaedia without a lot of running acrimony.
 * The links on the talk page remain plainly visible to anyone who wants to discuss them. I've disabled talk page links hundreds of times and you're the first person to say it was inappropriate. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on my disabling the talk page links.
 * Your ideas about changes to our guidelines and to our Mediawiki software have a good deal of merit and I encourage you to pursue them. I don't even know where you'd begin with the proposed changes to our software; I know I have several I'd make too.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You voted twice
Thank you for your support in my RfA, but you voted twice (12 & 31). -MBK004 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops -- thanks for pointing this out! -- A. B. (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

whatsup gold
Hi,

I saw your comment on my entry on whats up gold. I'd like to address the notability challenge. it's notable because it is oneof if not the most widely used network monitoring solution out there. it's been around since the early-mid 90s and has over 14,000 deployments. as a category, network monitoring is not very well understood, so I've added some references to the parent Network monitoring page. since whatsup gold is one of the most widely-used products in this category, it would be an error of ommission for wikipedia to have detailed pages on newer less widely deployed products and not have one about whatsup gold.

I also provided strong references to third-party, independent sources of information, such as well-respected IT magazine reviews of whatsup gold.

As to coi, I have quite a bit of domain expertise, having helped found the Open Management Consortium. I have also been an editor of linuxworld magazine, where I wrote about systems management quite a bit. I am also the project manager of an open source systems management project, NetDirector and I stay very close to all thuings related to systems management. I believe that the whatsup gold article is consistent with wikipedia's npov. I agree that more detail is needed about the architecture and how it works, and I am working on that.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtewallace (talk • contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

www.rothbartsfoot.info
I think you're right that this is spam. It's certainly doesn't meet either notability or verifiability guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of network management systems
Hello. I'm trying to sort out the underlying issues with User:Popperian, by offline discussion. One thing that comes up: list of network management systems. I see that this is vulnerable to spamming, and the accusation of spamming has made matters worse in the business I'm looking into. My question to you is: could this list just as easily become a category? Would perhaps nip some spam in the bud. Could you reply on my User talk? Charles Matthews (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, from Thomas
Thank you, A.B, for at least recognizing that I'm genuinely trying to help improve Wikipedia and not maliciously vandalizing it. If edits I make can be improved, I'm happy to do so as best I know how. I don't take too kindly to someone just deleting or reverting my work, without explanation, or refusing to compromise, or attacking me or stalking me.

In any case, after all the crap from last night and this morning, I do appreciate that you took the time to note that I'm at least trying to do good. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure.


 * I would not take the deletion of those two articles too personally, whatever some commenters' motivations might seem. They are really swimming upstream against the very specific requirements of our current notability guidelines.


 * I'll also point out that you probably don't want an article if you or your organization is weakly notable. They can easily be turned into negative attack articles without anyone noticing. That's harder to do if there's lots of solid press coverage backing the material. Trust me, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NN are your friends even if it doesn't feel like it today. -- A. B. (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that A.B.'s comments were highly appropriate, we are certainly no0t trying to chase you off the site or undervalue your contributions, Thomas. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest w/ Herbalife
I am not an Herbalife distributor, I simply feel that you are single handedly taking a negative point of view regarding Dr. Ignarro. We have discussed this on the Ignarro talk page and I thought it was settled. No encyclopedia article would include such minute and negative information about someone; is there any mention on the other Nobel prize winner's pages of mistakes they have made? Ignarro apologized for an oversight on his part, it has nothing to do with Herbalife, and he had promoted the ingredients in Niteworks for decades before there was a Niteworks. Wattssw (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By your standards, information about Ignarro appearing in the 'World's Greatest Treasury of Health Secrets' infomercial should appear on his page and maybe Herbalife's page simply because you find it shady. Not illegal, not unethical - and just because there are news stories or blogs about something doesn't make it encyclopedia worthy. Wattssw (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any such talk page consensus that this has been "settled". I have extensively documented the sources for this material, all of them meeting the requirments of our Verifiability Policy. Just as I have scrupulously removed a lot of bogus negative stuff about Herbalife from that article, I don't think Herbalife partisans (including the likely operator of an Herbalife forum) can have it both ways --flogging the relationship to Ignarro without acknowledging that there was a dark side to it that created quite a stir among his scientific peers. Dr Ignarro has made millions of dollars off of his relationship with Herbalife. It's not as big a part of his life as the Nobel Prize but it is notable. -- A. B. (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam
, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was very pleased to support you and I know you'll do a great job. --21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Ioeth
Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA
, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Your addition of my "Deletion Track Record" was really nice. I didn't even know myself that I had a 98% success rate when it comes to deletion tagging. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I was happy to do this. I know you'll be a very good admin. -- A. B. (talk)

My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * MONGO, while I opposed your candidacy, I was very impressed by your demeanor during the thing. I wish you the very best of luck going forward. Thanks for this note. -- A. B. (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Civertan.hu
Have a look here. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. cross wiki ect--Hu12 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * + substantial uploads on Commons (same user name and no links) which I've requested others to look at, cheers -- Herby talk thyme 16:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Hi there. Thanks for the message. I wasn't trying to make a point; I was just trying to follow someone's suggestion of marking them as historical. I think I was too bold, and sorry for that. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. That's cool. I have earned my own share of bold-burn scars over time. -- A. B. (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, what articles you editing at the moment?? I'm just editing whatever I can, wherever possible, although I've started becoming active at Talk:Sea of Japan. Anything I can help you with?? Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I currently have over >3000 pages on my watchlist, but the vast majority are talk pages of spammers or deleted spam articles and not very active. We could really use more help with WikiProject Spam -- see the talk page and ask there if you're interested. -- A. B. (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)