Difference between revisions of "User talk:Himmelsdemon"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Himmelsdemon (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I noticed you protected the latest spam article "Neodex/neodex/index.php". I've always deleted such articles like this so users wouldn't get confused about what it was. your protection of it took me by surprise, and i'm wondering if that should be done instead of deletion. also, do you know what is up with articles of this type being created? i tried looking into it, but couldn't find anything similar in other wikis (yet at least). --[[User:Jacob|Jacob]] 19:12, 17 Jan 2007 (CST) | I noticed you protected the latest spam article "Neodex/neodex/index.php". I've always deleted such articles like this so users wouldn't get confused about what it was. your protection of it took me by surprise, and i'm wondering if that should be done instead of deletion. also, do you know what is up with articles of this type being created? i tried looking into it, but couldn't find anything similar in other wikis (yet at least). --[[User:Jacob|Jacob]] 19:12, 17 Jan 2007 (CST) | ||
:Well, as you already said, the artcile looks like part of the domain. I thought, I should protect it from recreation, but as you can't protect a deleted article, I decided not to delete it. It might be a good idea to write a note in the article such as "This article has often been created for spam purposes and was protected to prevent futher spamming." However, if you have another solution, delete the article. Maybe the spammers won't create it again, who knows? And I don't see any reason in creating such articles, but I could never really understand spammers^^--[[User:Himmelsdemon|Demon]] 05:30, 18 Jan 2007 (CST) | :Well, as you already said, the artcile looks like part of the domain. I thought, I should protect it from recreation, but as you can't protect a deleted article, I decided not to delete it. It might be a good idea to write a note in the article such as "This article has often been created for spam purposes and was protected to prevent futher spamming." However, if you have another solution, delete the article. Maybe the spammers won't create it again, who knows? And I don't see any reason in creating such articles, but I could never really understand spammers^^--[[User:Himmelsdemon|Demon]] 05:30, 18 Jan 2007 (CST) | ||
==Demonic Moving== | |||
Move going OK? --[[User:Macbeth|Macbeth]] 17:24, 16 Aug 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:24, 16 August 2007
Sysop Powers Gained
For your hard work and dedication to the NeoDex, i feel you earned the right to be an administrator. continue to keep up the good work. *shakes hand* :) --Jacob 07:37, 10 Jan 2007 (CST)
- Congratulations! You deserve it, you are forever keeping us on our toes and mercilessly attacking typos and inconsistencies ;). --Macbeth 08:45, 10 Jan 2007 (CST)
The spam article
I noticed you protected the latest spam article "Neodex/neodex/index.php". I've always deleted such articles like this so users wouldn't get confused about what it was. your protection of it took me by surprise, and i'm wondering if that should be done instead of deletion. also, do you know what is up with articles of this type being created? i tried looking into it, but couldn't find anything similar in other wikis (yet at least). --Jacob 19:12, 17 Jan 2007 (CST)
- Well, as you already said, the artcile looks like part of the domain. I thought, I should protect it from recreation, but as you can't protect a deleted article, I decided not to delete it. It might be a good idea to write a note in the article such as "This article has often been created for spam purposes and was protected to prevent futher spamming." However, if you have another solution, delete the article. Maybe the spammers won't create it again, who knows? And I don't see any reason in creating such articles, but I could never really understand spammers^^--Demon 05:30, 18 Jan 2007 (CST)
Demonic Moving
Move going OK? --Macbeth 17:24, 16 Aug 2007 (UTC)