User talk:Hu12

Welcome

Welcome to the talk page . --Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Support this page by clicking on this advertisement. Receive a "free" userbox!!

Removing user's post from their own talk page

Hello. I've replied to this as a talk page stalker at the user's talk page. But before you added that warning, you removed the user's last reply to a previous conversation between myself and that user, with this edit. Please could you explain why you did that? Thank you, Struway2 (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That was in error, thanks for replacing it. I've replied to your comment, however, your satement does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thought it probably was just a mistake. I've replied over there: think perhaps we don't interpret LINKSPAM/ELYES the same way. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I've requested opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Opinions wanted about including a link to a player's club profile in their Ext links section. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Question, Why are you asking them permission to spam the external links section? That wasn't the suggestion. Please re-read my suggestion. Has nothing to with external links section. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Content Delivery Network Page / Broken Links

Hi, if you are not happy with the new sources for broken links can you delete it completely so that people would not argue about brokent links on wikipedia. Best..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.57.19 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you call for this page to be deleted? It is currently an orphan, which doesn't call for deletion (according to wikipedia), especially as it's still being developed. Unless you have a clear awareness of electronic dance music and the self-help industry, it doesn't make sense for you to call for a deletion on subjects you have limited knowledge on. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Billyjazz79, you have made 176 edits since the article was created in November of 2010‎. You can not validly claim it's "being developed" after two years and be taken seriously. All topics are subject to Wikiprdias inclusion criteria and must demonstrate that notability to be included. My knowledge of the electronic dance music industry is irrelevant, as is your assumption of it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hu12. Your desire to delete this page is mumbo jumbo. I've checked with admins on wikipedia who have contributed more than you and you are just looking for bones to pick (as you are known for). There is nothing "wrong" with this article. It needs a clean up, granted; but to ask for it to be deleted is rather silly. Why exactly do you believe it should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hu12, I have a lot of work to do over the next month thus, I do not have time to go back and forth for a wiki article or get into a political debate. If you truly feel that this article doesn't contribute to wiki or to someone who searches for this article, delete it and do it promptly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

120.28.247.28

Hi. You warned 120.28.247.28 (talk · contribs · count) for spamming. I've seen those same bogus edit summaries ("Added Jack Lang's info",etc.) used by another anonymous spammer in the last week or two.

I wish I could remember who or where. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Some how seems familiar to me also, however i cant place where.... --Hu12 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Found it: 125.60.231.188 (talk · contribs · count). Both IPs are in the Philippines but registered to different ISPs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice find. Would be nice to be able to search edit summaries. Must be plain ole SEO, I don't see the connection with the links the connection is they are all adsense related Adsense google_ad_client = pub-1687575123054330 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report).--Hu12 (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The terms of service of these sites states " This site is controlled by Perfect Insight, Inc. in the State of California, USA."...--Hu12 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: terms of service -- look at this Google search: [1] I think perhaps the whole world has plagiarized some company's legal terms -- for example, I doubt Northwestern University's student newspaper is controlled by our spammer.

Interesting. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the same search. Templated up to page 4, but its endless...

..UUgh!--Hu12 (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Perfect Insights has anything to do with this -- I think the only common denominator is that a lot of people have been using the same cut-and-paste boilerplate for years without examining who they lifted it from (some company called Perfect Insights that actually paid a lawyer instead of stealing their boilerplate from someone else).

I think this is the map to the real snake's nest: www.foxdirect.com. Using that, I started finding other IPs in Las Vegas and Chicago + one in Bangkok (the site owner is a traveler according to his blog. He also owns a bunch of Las Vegas-related domains).

I've posted that stuff at User talk:120.28.247.28#Additions. I went through a bunch of it, but not the final batch of 186 I just posted.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Still at it today with the same IP he's used recently, 125.60.231.188 notwithstanding the note I left him about Google blacklisting, etc.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Err, Google does use our blacklist? Could I have a linky? I'm interested to read that! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dirk, ask Jehochman -- I think he confirmed this in a conversation at an SEO meeting with Matt Cutts. Google doesn't automatically use our list (which is a smart move on their part since we blacklist things they don't care about like URL shorteners) but I gather they do look at it. I don't know if this means they investigate new entries as they're added or just consult it when they have their own suspicions about a domain.

My two personal take-aways from this:

• Spammers need to avoid us.
• We have an ethical duty to only use our blacklist after a spammer's had multiple warnings (unless there are other factors: malware, BLP attacks, disruption, clear knowledge of our rules as evidenced by proxies or sockpuppets, etc). This is because: we're big, we have influence, and not every spammer is a bad person; some just don't understand our rules at first.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

More spam is likely and it may help to understand our spammer's patterns:

• He travels all over; see www.getfoxy.com for his latest location
• At least while he's in the Far East, he's been adding spam typically between 0000 and 0800 UTC
• Recently he's used edit summaries like these. (See the early September entries).
• His IPs when he's traveling can be very dynamic (Internet cafes?) and used by other people even in the same day.
• I have blacklisted every domain of his that I could find but he keeps adding new ones. Blacklist them as you see them.
• Assuming he keeps his current pattern, I use this link to the most recent 5000 anonymous article-space edits (typically 3 to 6 hours worth), then search the page for the term, "'s info)". This is very simple and quick; I just wish I could look back more than 5000 edits.
• Let's hope he keeps to the same distinctive pattern (and doesn't see this discussion).

I am often offline -- can others check every so often? Blacklist any thing as you see it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Speak of the devil, here are two more in the last several hours: Special:Contributions/180.190.150.164.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, Google told me that they take our blacklist as a spam report. They process our public data, check other signals, and decide for themselves who they think is a spammer. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a lot of work, but I'm hoping our friend finally starts to understand we're serious when he goes to add his links in a few hours. I think I've now found and blacklisted most but not all of his domains.

"All your base are belong to us" (I hope).--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tps-reply here, Jehochman. Now to turn this around, I am also interested in doing this backward. I do that to a certain extend with the linkwatchers, but it would be great to see more professional lists of spam-domains, which may include links that are known to be spam, blacklisted elsewhere, spammed here, but have not been caught by us. Does Google provide such a service (I am already looking into their fishing and malware system, but those are small fishes which generally stay out of the 'Street of Wikipedia' in the 'Large Internet Ocean'). The followers of m:User:LiWa3 on IRC do get early information about certain spam-related info (clickbank IDs are detected, e.g.) on added domains, and I have bashed editors around based on that information. Ideas? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of project-management software

Why did you removed here the references? I was/am trying to get all stuff referenced (although I'm very busy atm) I know that these are not the best references, but better than no references at all! Moreover http://www.techgeeze.com/ looks like a typical computer online mag... mabdul 12:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mabdul. The article for which the citation you mention above, Celoxis, already contains that specific techgeeze.com reference. The purpose of having comparison/list's is primarily for navigation of a structured topic and since only Notable project-management articles are included, references should be place in the respective articles.--Hu12 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Biography of living persons noticeboard: R. J. Ellory

Hi, just to let you know that I was contacted by one of editors involved in the dispute at R. J. Ellory. I offered advice and opened a BLP discussion on his/their behalf. I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#R. J. Ellory. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Cranel Company Page

Hu12, I have returned the content of the Cranel page to the original form. Could you =lease review and confirm it abides by Wikipedia guidelines and will not be deleted. Thank you.66.192.200.250 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The original content was developed with Wikipedia Writers - support@wikipediawriter.com, and the individual's name was Zach (no last name was provided).66.192.200.250 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete An independent internet site was added as a reference for ISOdx Solutions [[2]]66.192.200.250 (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Another reference added - Columbus Business First - Cranel CFO Recognized [3]66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Another reference added - ISOdx president interviewed by John Ragsdale, analyst with TSIA "Eye On Service"66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick question, whats your relationship to Cranel, Inc.?--Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No relation, just trying to help out a fellow Columbus-Ohio based business owner compete. I don't understand why the Eye on Service blog fails as an independent source? The TSIA = Technology Services Industry Association, and it is their job to identify new technologies that may be of use to their members. Neither Cranel nor ISOdx is a member of that organization, to my knowledge. Therefore, isn't this a third-party reference?66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how I answered your question but you've neglected to answer mine. Telling.66.192.200.250 (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You may have noted the remark at the top of the page. Note that not all third-party references make something notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia Writers -- I've been tracking that person for several years. I think it's easier to track the writers and quietly tag articles (and delete where appropriate) than it is to block them, drive them underground, then have them resurface with new accounts and new articles we don't know about. Also, I figure tagging articles with {{coi}}, {{notability}} and {{advert}} doesn't help their customer relations, either. Of course, you don't want to let the paid editors get too powerful.

This is the same reasoning I use when blacklisting domains but not blocking spammers -- better the problem I can see than the sockpuppet I can't.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

PS, Another reason I didn't sanction that writer (or even tip my hand) was that he was also producing a [[lot of useful content.

Electro article

In the Electro (music) article, why did you remove the link to the 1984 The Face article on the electro music & b-boy scene? The 'classic' link text needed some toning down, but I was rather grateful someone managed to find some period literature about the genre. —mjb (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The author Apiento (talk · contribs)(by APIENTO testpressing.org/author/apiento/) WP:COI WP:SPAMMED a link to his own work...over multiple articles..--Hu12 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We've gotten off to a bad start

* {{cite web|title=50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation|author=Connett, Paul, Ph.D.|publisher=Fluoride Action Network|date=2012-09-15|url=http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/|accessdate=2012-09-21}} This resource is extensively footnoted.

I was seeking to add this {{Cite web}} of 50 Reasons added to Water fluoridation controversy#Further reading. The evidence you provided me of spamming really has nothing more than someone asked to have it blacklisted, but not really why, partially due to non-permanent links. The one thing I noticed was that someone spammed AN/I(?), and alleged it due to persons suspected being Freedom5000. Nothing links to what was actually done, including the AN/I discussion, just evil spamming sockpuppets, blah, blah, blah!. I looked at your link, just didn't see anything relevant.

So, here I am, trying to do something reasonable and simple, but having to deal with sesitive admin feelings over some conflict that doesn't concern us here. I understand the unique frustrations of cleaning up after anti-social behavior on Wikipedia. I tended certain articles and would beg admins to do something like what now exists and is commonplace: semi-protection. Just to keep the need for cleanup down to a dull roar. I understand that spamming blacklists are a similar aid in cutting down the noise. Blocking a significant public information site is a big deal, however. This is like having NORML.org on that list: you really couldn't discuss opposition to cannabis prohibition without citing them. FAN seems to be of a similar staure in the opposition to water fluoridation. A whole tissue of similar organizations reference it. This is a case where the blacklist is simply not the right tool.

I started a discussion on what I am trying to accomplish here, as well as the reasoning supporting it. Please join in, if you like. I think the whole domain should be unblacklisted, but allowing me to make this reference as a one-off would be a good compromise. The link to this paper belongs precisely here. BTW, note the authors.

I'm also planning to ask brangifer about his request, but thought I would mend fences first. I was never trying to be vexatious. =)

Best Regards,

-SM 09:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hu12, I have replied to SM here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Walk-forward

Hu12, Can I reverse your changes to the Walk-forward optimization? The original article was criticized for (a) the lack of citation, (b) the how-to-content. I corrected it and explained the walk-forward based on the best reference I know and use. Unfortunately, you returned the article to the old version written by a vendor. Further, I planed to put more pictures as I explained on the Talk page for "Walk-forward optimization". I also asked for help on my "talk" page and received advice from another member. Thank you. Seaman4516 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Large rewrites should have consensus on the talk page. Also exclude references to "The Encyclopedia of Trading Strategies", I've noticed you and another account referencing different articles similarly;

• "In the words of J. Katz and D. McCormick:<ref name=Katz>Katz, J., McCormick, D. The Encyclopedia of Trading Strategies"
• "In the words of J. Katz and D. McCormick, in the book The Encyclopedia of Trading Strategies <ref name="KatzMcCormick">"

and are the only two accounts adding links to oxfordstrat.com (company Oxford Capital Strategies Ltd)[4][5][6][7][8], similarly i'm also noticing quite a bit of "'Stefan Martinek" related content being added. Please see WP:NOT, WP:COI and WP:RS.--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Hu12. I probably leave the initiative in "Walk-forward" for more experienced editors and make only some minor changes when I feel it is justified; I do not want to fight with editors. One final question: on "Trading Strategies" in "Talk" section were warnings from Wikipedia about viruses -- after deleting links I assumed that "Talk" page can be cleaned. You reversed my edit and there are now the original warnings. Was my step wrong? Should I never delete any talk even when it is scary and not relevant any more? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaman4516 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are not deleted, discussions get archived as a matter of record. I understand your intention removing the content was in good faith, however the offending link was d-hyperlinked shortly after it was reported three years ago. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Bariatric surgery links

I am confused, is this where we come to tell you that you are a moron for removing the American Association of Bariatric Surgeons link from the Lap Band page? I have been using this page to educate patients for going on two years and for some reason you think this link is inappropriate? It's not spam, its the equal to the AMA for doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.67.184 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll chip in here. Your comment above is rude and unhelpful.

Of the links you added,^[9][10] my own personal opinion is that asmbs.org is absolutely worthwhile. niddk.nih.gov and mja.com.au also add value. On the other hand, lapband.info and findlapbandsurgeon.com are commercial junk.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP from Baptist Health System, the link, asmbs.org, is appropriate on the American Society for Bariatric Surgery page, where the link belongs and already exists. Unfortunatly it appears that you keep repeatedly misplacing it on Adjustable gastric band. To effectively "educate patients", one would first need to find the right page. --Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific about deletion of video lecture on Lolita article

The External link added by another user was a video lecture by a literature professor uploaded by the copyright owner. I don't see why it violates WP:ELNO. Could you be more specific, please??--WickerGuy (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Primarily WP:ELNO #4 however #11 and #7 can apply. This podcast (Big Ideas video podcast) was added, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines, by an account associated with the link (bigideas.tvo.org/contributor/gregg-thurlbeck). thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that clarifies it. I don't know if you have seen the note at the bottom of his Talk page where he says "the larger problem was that I linked to the YouTube versions of the podcasts which often have an ad appended to the top end of the video. In future I will link to the original video housed on TVO's Brightcove player. The copyright holder for this material is TVO, the public, educational broadcaster where I work. They are happy to have this material linked to on Wikipedia and they receive no material benefit as a result of the link." Actually, there are some other good online video lectures on the same novel, but I'm not sure about copyright issues there.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:76.189.121.57

They can blank the talk page if they want - the block has been lifted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Boing. I just saw your comment right after I posted mine below. ;) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Boing, thanks also for posting on the Musicians talk page about the vocal range issue. I appreciate it. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

Why did you put the content back on my talk page that I removed? What I removed is allowed per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. Thank you. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw Boing's comment to you (above) which supported what I told you. Thanks. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages of anonymous users may be blanked or deleted as part of routine housekeeping if they meet the following criteria:

1. Never been blocked
2. Not using any unsubstituted templates (e.g., {{SharedIPEDU}})
3. No edits within the last year
4. No talk page activity within the last year
5. No incoming links to the page

IP's change, transfer and are not user accounts, which can blank or vanish.[11]

--Hu12 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

One problem. That section is for "Old IP talk pages" only. Mine is not an old IP talk page. I am an unregistered (IP) user removing comments from the talk page currently assigned to me. So those guidelines do not apply in this case. It should also be noted that "old" talk pages are ones that have had "No edits within the last year" and "No talk page activity within the last year". The relevant guidelines are noted below. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That's general maintenance by other editors - IP's are allowed to blank their own talk pages, and this is clearly the same user doing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages of IP's are not user accounts, which can blank.--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Show us the policy that says an IP editor using the same IP address cannot blank messages that were clearly addressed to them. Anyway, try applying a bit of common sense rather than trying to insist on hard and fast rules - why on earth should this editor be forced to retain old warnings on their talk page that were clearly addressed to them and are no longer needed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This IP has edited for 3 days been blocked for 1 day and has threatened other editors. the WP:USER policy is for registered accounts. IP get reassigned, transfered and shared, they are not user accounts. please show me where WP:USER applies.--Hu12 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Read what it says below! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My reading of WP:REMOVED is very clear. It says, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". I cleared my own talk page and did not remove any of the following types of content that are prohibited from being removed:

• Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction
• Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress)
• Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).
• For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address.
• {{Noindex} added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus). Note this can safely be removed from talk pages and subpages where it has no effect.

Thanks, --76.189.121.57 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hu12, with all due respect, you are misunderstanding the relevant policies and what a user is. First of all, WP:REMOVED is a subsection of WP:USER. And in the very first subsection of WP:USER, WP:USERSUBPAGE, it shows in the first two paragraphs that a user page and user talk page apply to both registered an unregistered accounts; each of those two paragraphs contain a "This link is to yours" link. When I click on it, it of course goes to my user talk page (76.189.121.57), because I am the user with that IP address. Where WP:REMOVED says that policy does not prohibit "unregistered users" from clearing their own talk page, "unregistered users" means IPs. By the way, the fact that Boing blocked me for several hours yesterday, and the reasons why, have absolutely nothing to do with this policy issue. So I am perplexed as to why you, especially as an administrator, would choose to make it part of this discussion. And for the record, I was not blocked for "threatening" other editors; I was blocked for being rude (insulting) to others. My only "threat", as Boing will verify, was telling one editor (not "editors" (plural) as you indicated) that I would report them to an administrator if they continued editing in a way I was opposed to. I have learned from my mistakes. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:HUMAN also shows that IPs are synonomous with "unregistered users". And the What an unregistered user can't do subsection begins by saying, "As a general rule, unregistered users can do everything that registered users can" and that they can "contribute to policy proposals and do (almost) everything else that a registered user can do". --76.189.121.57 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

IP's don't fall under Wikipedia:User page and IP's are not currently given the same latitude under WP:USER as "registered users", however I'll extend some of the same latitude by creating an archive for you. You should however consider creating an account. --Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hu, I noticed you just archived my talk page without my permission. You have no right to do that. WP:REMOVED clearly states that archiving is "preferred", not required. I feel that your behavior and repeated altering of my talk page is verging on harassment. Please stop. I have done nothing wrong and have violated no policies. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Listen up Hu12, if you don't stop fucking around with other user's talk pages (and yes, "unregistered users" are users, just like registered ones, and they have almost the same rights) and pay some attention to WP:REMOVE which is unambiguous, you're going to find yourself the subject of an ANI report. I'm off to bed now - I hope I don't wake tomorrow and feel I'm forced down that path. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I've deleted that archive page you made - you have absolutely no right to force a user to have one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

..And how would that AN/I read; "fellow admin reverts anon page blanking once then creates talk archive"?...Give me a break. And yes, "unregistered users" are users, but that's not what i was referring to. Additionaly this comment/threat is way out of line, consider that your only warning. --Hu12 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hu12, I urge you to reconsider your "only warning" to me - you can report me to ANI for incivility if you like, but you'll find that the current mood regarding civility warnings is not in your favour, especially when you are the one who is wrong about policy and have been refusing to listen. Your behaviour here as an admin has been woefully lacking, and if you carry on refusing to consider that you might have been wrong, and won't listen when three other editors (two of them admins) tell you so and provide evidence, you'll find out soon enough what my ANI report will say. You've made a mistake, so have the decency to admit it and we can move on without any need for further action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:USER is a content Guideline (not a policy) as with content guidelines, exceptions do apply. In this case, a recently blocked user, with a history of blanking article space content, blanking Talk-page content, twice along with all of the other stuff which ultimatly lead to 76.189.121.57 being blocked Reverting in what outwardly appeared to be continued blanking straight after a block would seem appropriate. Both you and 76.189.121.57 (Road Runner HoldCo LLC Allocated IP), seemed to mistake my comments above about IP's not being WP:USER and the difference of latitude given, this was never meant offend or imply that "unregistered users" are not people, it was technical in nature. With that being said, you blatantly breached civility, Failing to assume my single revert as good faith, attributed malice to my attempting to provide a new IP with an archive, and continuing to threaten "further action"? This is unacceptable and is certainly not a civil way to interact. Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, however at this point the matter is closed and any further discussion becomes quite secondary to the behavior on display.--Hu12 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I have no option but to take this dispute to AN for resolution - I will provide you with a link when the report is ready. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hu, I didn't see your 21:42 post until after I posted at 21:47. Unregistered users (IPs) are users! I have presented far more policies to you than was necessary to prove this to you. Boing is an administrator (and the one who blocked me yesterday) and has told you the same thing. I am asking you nicely once again to please stop altering my talk page as I have violated no rules. I have no idea why you are treating me like this. I've never even crossed paths with you before this. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Hu12, I noticed that the guideline which you quote is from Simple:Wikipedia:User_page#Old IP talk pages, which is a different Mediawiki project, and which has different guidelines than this project. For en.wikipedia, the relevant comparable guideline is at Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, and is worded as indicated by the IP and by Boing! said Zebedee. I'm guessing this is the source of the confusion causing the dispute, although I could be mistaken. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've also commented on this possible cause of the confusion at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee‎. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hu, I see that you've again made accusations about me (at 10:20, 9 October 2012) that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, so I feel it's necessary to respond since it relates to my reputation. I still have no idea why you seem to have this grudge against me and have repeatedly, and inaccurately, brought up previous actions by me that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of blanking one's own talk page per mutliple guidelines. You apparently do not like me, even though we've never had contact prior to this page-blanking issue, but I can't do anything about your feelings. But what I can do is to ask you to please adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and to stop violating the rights of other editors. In terms of your characterizations of me based on my previous edits, let me address them briefly to show how out-of-context they are. First, you claimed I have a "history" of blanking article space content, but what the history actually shows is that I did this in two articles (Greenberg and X Factor) and they were legitimate, good-faith removals for inappropriate content, as evidenced by other editors who agreed not to put back the content. So there's no bad conduct in this regard, let alone a history of it. Next, you claimed I had a history of talk page blanking. But what you failed to mention is that it was my own talk page from which I removed content, which every administrator in the AN has verified is allowed. If I want to remove completed content to reduce clutter on my talk page, Wikipedia allows me to do that. Finally, you alluded to "all of the other stuff" which led to my being blocked by Boing. Well, "all of the other stuff" was my speaking rudely to some other editors. I paid the price by being blocked for several hours and then we all moved on. But what does any of that have to do with you unblanking and archiving my talk page, without my permission and in violation of multiple guidelines? Nothing. So while you may think it's productive to repeatedly try to characterize me as a bad person and a disruptive editor, it's actually inappropriate (especially for an administrator), hurtful, and irrelevant. I acknowledged and apologized for my mistakes. Have you done the same? --76.189.121.57 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dispute with admin User:Hu12 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)