User talk:A. B./June 2009

No need to say more ..

 * m:Category:COIBot Local Reports
 * m:Category:Open Local reports

And


 * m:Category:Open Local reports for en.wikipedia.org
 * m:Category:COIBot Local Reports for en.wikipedia.org

Enjoy! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some glitches, but it seems now to run smoothly. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Smkovalinsky
Hello. I am wondering, what was User:Smkovalinsky blocked for? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Blocking policy, I blocked his/her account as being here for spam and advertising purposes only. This editor along with Petrosianii and some New Jersey-area IPs (68.193.109.55, 76.94.134.98, 98.96.238.70, 65.168.148.66, 68.196.41.39) have been involved in COI-editing of these articles:
 * Liz Glazowski - Al Dana's spouse
 * Al Dana
 * Kegel Male Trainer - deleted 3 times (Al Dana's invention)
 * Male exercise device
 * Security Footwear - Al Dana invention
 * Al Dana: Inventor, Investor, Impressario
 * Jack Gulick
 * New Yorker Hotel
 * Edward Longley
 * see Articles for deletion/Edward Longley
 * Kegel Male Exercise Trainer
 * Braun Mincher
 * as well as spamming some associated promotional material regarding the "Kegal Male Trainer" to other articles. Some of this stuff was real junk. Collectively these accounts were persistent enough to receive (and ignore) multiple warnings about linkspam, spam articles and conflicts of interest. Eventually, enough was enough and I blocked Smkovalinsky for disruption/spam/advertising.


 * I suspect that probably the first rule of illicit paid editing on Wikipedia should be "screen your clients". The Kegel Male Trainer is no Arch Coal This person (or team) seemed to be working with some very weak material and then diligently trying to cram their stuff into Wikipedia for their clients. Predictably, this enterprise has ended in tears and, since Smkovalinsky's block, wikidrama on and off Wikipedia. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do I understand you right that the articles are bad and/or the subjects non-notable, not just written for reasons you dislike? The article sure look bad, so I would agree. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not look at all the edits to all the articles. Clearly some topics are notable -- for instance the New Yorker Hotel. But the Dana-related stuff just did not belong here. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Joe jobbing put-in-bay.com
Alright. Feel free to remove the entry that I added. Thanks for letting me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not exactly understanding — are you saying that our spammer is trying to make put-in-bay.com look like spam so that we'll blacklist it? I can understand that you've put in a lot of work on this: thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, higher up on the removals page is one for sermonaudio.com, which seems to have support: I would remove this if I understood the kind of coding used by the MediaWiki blacklist page. Would you please take action on this request?  Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to go away for awhile. I'll be back in July. If I don't look at this then, please remind me. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)