User talk:Nixeagle

My account on the english wikipedia, I am an administrator there. (with 1000 others) en:User:Eagle_101.

Congrats on becoming a sysop! I expect you to set Talk:Spam blacklist as your homepage with immediate effect :D I think you'll be an asset here, good luck. --Majorly 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Would you please clarify its relevant to WMF/meta more closely? In this circumstance it is so vague it could be a speedy candidate in my opinion. --Aphaia 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

I think I goofed -- see Talk:Spam blacklist#nolico.com. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Already done. Eagle 101 03:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

There's some discussion on the Artistic Language page regarding Langmaker. I've looked at the reasons for blacklisting it here and I'll agree that for independent conlangs it should be considered spam or better said, self-promotion, but it is a great resource and nexus for con-langers. Is there a way to "protect" it, limiting the link to Artistic Language or Constructed Language articles? I appreciate your response. en:User:BoLingua 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Yeah, for the time being I've listed it on the WP:WHITELIST, it should be fine for now. There is discussion going on at WT:WPSPAM about this. Feel free to hop in.

Thanks for the heads-up, and apologies for the delay in responding. I've replied on that page. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Really bad :-) Many bots and many users spamming their site. IIRC a user is waiting for a toolserver account to set up an antispam-bot. I don't think anybody will watch a counter spam channel :-/ (also, I definitely left the project).
I proposed the activation of the ConfirmEdit extension for anonymous users adding new URLs a month ago, but nobody replied... Thank you anyway! --.anaconda 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I wrote this on[[1]] As you can see I have had a few run ins with A.B. For some reason we have had some arguments. I have written comments and was warned not to attack for these comments on [[2]] They keep vanishing. I have been warned and it has been documented. I just want all editors to have all the facts. I just have a problem with someone with knowledge or power in wiki to abuse the system. A well respected editor 3 months ago cleaned up the articles and warned of blacklisting these sites if they spammed us (wiki) again. Since that warning the links was not put back on wiki. I have watched how A.B. handled the situation and like I said earlier he wouldn't or these sites wouldn't be blacklisted if A.B. didn't have something against the user. Here is what was written on the page above. That is the problem with wiki nobody will take the time to review the information before commenting and writing. Look at you. You said Jan. 7th hasn't been 3 months. The last time this website had posted an external link was Sep. 13th which is well over 3 months. I am not going to sit an argue. I simply know that this user has a history of trying to get sites blacklisted and A.B. had pulled up everything he could find and had them blacklisted. All I am saying is the webmaster has not made any spam attempts for these 2 sites since Sep. 13th or longer. Please help uphold standards. Please look at all the information before commenting. We don't need you making choices without actually reviewing content. P.S. Editors will continue not to like me. I am and will continue holding the highest standards for wiki. I am sorry if you oppose the way I work. But if you follow guidelines and read the material properly we can get along ok. If editors fail or lack research I will need to challange them. My goal is to make wiki a better place and I hope yours and other editors hold the same standards.

As far as I know, they have been re-inserted, at least as far as I can tell, but one thing for certian, please assume good faith in A. B. I'm sure he has better things to do then "persecute" a link or two. I think I've finally figured out what you are getting at. All you have been trying to say is that those two links have not been re-inserted. I think they might have been lumped togather, if that is the case, I'm sure on asking A. B. clearly if those links have been re-added, he will give an honest reply. Eagle 101 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

req

--M/ 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

I endeavoured to link en:trance with en:Ecstasy (emotion) and returned a dialogue box with Spam blacklist...Please could somebody debunk this 4 me?

Thanxta B9 hummingbird hovering 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

I'm going to assume this is for the english wiki, give me a second. Eagle 101 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Ok I've fixed this article. Let me know if that is all... if you are trying to edit a second article let me know. Eagle 101 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Thank ü

B9 hummingbird hovering 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Hi! What you think of this template example? (based on w:Template:Linksearch) Should I move the template in my sandbox to Template:Linksearch, so we can use it on Talk:Spam blacklist? (with a note on the top of the page)

If there is no problem, I can make [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/999.99.99.99 999.99.99.99] more simple too. For example: {{contrib|w|en|999.99.99.99}} —Mosca 12:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Looks interesting. Give it a try. I'm not sure how much it will be used, but its an interesting idea. Eagle 101 16:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Please. --Gardini 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

Thank you! --Gardini 17:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

Eagle, Can you now have this websites whitelisted. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#nationwidebillrelief.com_and_surfquotes.com user has still not replyed. You may want to contact him again, but, he has made edits on this same page this week and doesn't want to touch the question. I want to move on and focus on other ways to improve wikipedia.org. In the future I will no longer make personal attacks on A.B. as the last time we spoke he did have a genuine interest in my concerns. If he wants to keep the site blacklisted just tell him to answer the question. I am only fighting this cause to save future competitors from blacklisting sites and to have google and other search engines to take our blacklist serious.

Hi Eagle. I want to ask you specifically about zorpia.com's inclusion in the blacklist. There have been specific allegations that Zorpia is some kind of drug related spam/scam site. In particular I would like to draw your attention to A.B's talk page at [[3]]. Although on the face of it, his comments and links look fair enough, scrutiny reveals an odd methodology. Close inspection of the links given, reveal that they are all search results that start from item 700 onwards.

1) By using the same method, we can find that many reputable web sites (including wikipedia) can be shown to have 'lots of references to drugs'

2) A regular search of 'Zorpia' on Google such as [[4]] only reveals that it is what it claims to be, a social networking site. How many pages of the Google search do you have to page through to find references to drugs? I got bored trying.

3) With 5 million member pages at Zorpia, Wikipedia is blocking a worldwide resource of potential quotes and links to images.

4) Currently, searching for 'Zorpia' on Wikipedia (en)[[5]], leads the user to links such as this [[6]] - search result where the number one result is A.B's talk. This means that Wikipedia does a good job of directing people to its own source, which through faulty methodology and assertions/insinuations, makes false claims about a genuine Social Networking Site. I have to stress, that in itself is a serious matter. I have to say, although A.B is obviously not familiar with Zorpia, 5 million other people from around the world (at least) have heard it, and know it to be a genuine site, rather than a drug spamming site.

5) Zorpia has in the past (like many Social Networking Sites) been a victim of drug companies trying to use it as a vehicle to deliver spam. Wikipedia has itself suffered from the same fate (and similar) hence the existence of the blacklist. Wikipedia tries (understandably) to use systems to reduce this and protect its integrity. Zorpia, over several months, has done the same. Primarily, it imposed a daily message limit of 50 messages on its users, virtually making it useless to spammers and scammers. In addition, it employs a full time team to detect and delete accounts associated with these activities.

Having Zorpia on this blacklist, is the equivalent, of Zorpia, MySpace, Friendster, Hi5 etc placing WIKIPEDIA on their own blacklists, because it also has been a vehicle for spamming in the past.

6) Nobody wants to see spam on wikipedia, neither do Zorpia members want to see spam on Zorpia which is spread to wikipedia. However, on this occasion, wikipedia is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. It is going too far to blacklist the whole domain of 'zorpia.com'. I would suggest, that if a link is seen to be referring to drug company etc (e.g www.zorpia.com/drugscam), then that URL be blacklisted, rather than the whole domain. If these types of problems persisted, then I would suggest editors can contact support@zorpia.com.

I am totally astounded that Zorpia is not included in such a marvellous site as Wikipedia.

I have been a member of Zorpia now for just over a year, and I am so pleased I joined. I have made some WONDERFUL friends in many countries. What on earth is this thing about drugs? If any members are found trying to do deals etc with drugs, porn etc they are kicked out. There are many hepers and supporters on Zorpia doing their best to keep Zorpia clean, and fun and useful. No where else can one intereact in so many many ways and have unlimited storage of photos. I would recomend Zorpia to anyone over 16. It is a fantastic site. Till a 18 months ago I had not known of his site, I was hooked only on to Yahoo groups. Now it is almost the reverse. AND I have in fact just come home off a tour around the world, and met up with some of my wonderful Zorpian (& Yahoo) friends.

I can not believe that Zorpia is even considered to be blacklisted site. I hope that this error will soon be rectified.

After all 5 million members cannot all be wrong. Please see my personal page philcovers

Chris Phillips aged 67

Again I'm writing to you about your Deleting of Zorpia.com from this site Zorpia works endlessly to keep perverts,predators,spam, from its site users actively report them to a place on Zorpia called the ZORPIA REPORTING CENTRE [ There are aso a number of active user groups to fight this problem too ] also im you need further evidence that Zorpia acts on this problem I will quote you some reference case numbers from cases from online reporting site [7] and [8]

VGT please contact Katy MILNE and quote this case reported 27 June 2006 at 11:43:50 CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007

CEOP child Expolitation and Online Protection Centre/ Ref NO CEOP-2006-31 case study Kelly Murray

im sure if you contacted these sites and also Public-OCSET-OMC@afp.gov.au tis is the direct line to report internet predators to the Australian Feds and contact Agent Darryl Hamilton will confirm that in 2006 were working with Zorpia.com on 2 cases Zorpia.com reported to them

These are legitimate law Agencies im sure this this can give you some sufficient Evidence to go on not only does this show that zorpia.com is fighting online predators actively it also shows that Zorpia.com is against online crime Drugs Spamming and Perverts. It would be a very unwise move if Zorpia was doing what you claim them to be doing while also working on this problem

Tony Taiwan age 27

Make these arguments on the talk page of the spam blacklist. (by the way how did all these people from the forum realize it was blacklisted?) Thanks. Eagle 101 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

We were looking for Zorpia on Wikipedia and we couldn't find it. Check your spam blacklist. I posted something there. By the way, i'm not Tony, i'm someone else.

Well I will wait on someone to comment on the talk page of the meta blacklist, though I am curious how so many people all of a sudden want this link, but that is for another day. Eagle 101 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

Eagle, I need to ask you this again. Just deal with this situation please. If I need to go to someone else just let me know. I will need to stay on top of this until it gets resolved properly. user needs to answer the question on [[9]]. He will not because I caught him seeking revenge. But, it really is not like you to earase or avoid something. Maybe you over looked the situation. Either have A.B. answer or whitelist these sites so I can move on. I have caught A.B. violating many other sites and users. This is sad because he has so much information on don't need to stoop this low. I really wish him the best. If I contact him direct I get too upset and don't want someone to say I am attacking him. If you will follow wiki guidelines, you have nothing to worry about. Here is the repeat of what was left on March 10th. Eagle, Can you now have this websites whitelisted. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#nationwidebillrelief.com_and_surfquotes.com user has still not replyed. You may want to contact him again, but, he has made edits on this same page this week and doesn't want to touch the question. I want to move on and focus on other ways to improve wikipedia.org. In the future I will no longer make personal attacks on A.B. as the last time we spoke he did have a genuine interest in my concerns. If he wants to keep the site blacklisted just tell him to answer the question. I am only fighting this cause to save future competitors from blacklisting sites and to have google and other search engines to take our blacklist serious.