User talk:Lensovet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Example (talk · contribs) 08:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow Metro

You signed Elk Salmon's name on the talk page. This is ridiculous!

[edit] How do you suggest I post in Apple related categories?

I am an authorized Apple reseller and am one of only about 3-4 known U.S. based companies actively shipping globally to buyers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, etc. I provide an incredibly valuable service to my buyers, ship via FedEx International Priority, and sell more than $2 million in Apple products/year through my website, eBay, Amazon, price indexing sites, CPC advertising, etc. I posted a link in your entry for the iPod Mini that stated we ship globally and offer the very few remaining Apple iPods with full warranties to any buyer around the globe. Do you not think it worthwhile to offer these to buyers overseas who chance upon the Wiki for iPod Minis? They cannot/are not allowed to buy them through the Apple.com domain if they are outside the U.S. and Canada. I find it unfair to list Apple.com as a domain (they sell stuff - they are a commercial enterprise and that is what the post is about - a commercial product) or external link, but not offer an alternative to the 5.7 billion people living outside North America who cannot buy from the Apple.com website. Many countries throughout the world are not on Apple's direct sales list, and hence are charged double (or more) the retail price. I generally mark my iPods for sale @ U.S. retail plus international express shipping. That's it. I'm very proud of the business I maintain and honor and respect my buyers.

I'd like to be able to amicably find a way to reference myself (and even other competitors - I have no qualms about having someone else's link out there) as a viable option and let the reader determine if I'm a viable source through email/phone, references, etc. If I'm not even included in a Wiki, they're left trying to sift through countless scammers, etc. to find a legitimate way to buy an iPod without losing a fortune or being defrauded.

I previously worked for eBay Trust and Safety (2 years). I did fraud prevention and saw that the count on eBay for iPod listings was/is about 6-8x as many scammers without iPods (for every one that is legitimate).

Please let me know if you feel it's worth mentioning in any way that there are still viable suppliers of iPod minis with Apple warranties that ship these to buyers for a very good price.

Regards,

Chet Ranger President, US to UK dealusmaximus.com

[edit] Unfair block

User SkierRMH has blocked me from editing using an IP block that won't expire for 5 years. I find this to be absolutely ridiculous given the history of the many edits that I have made. I am, in fact, running a tor relay, but there is the option of soft-blocking, which I think is very appropriate given my past edit history and my complete lack of any vandalizing edits. One of my main motivations for running this proxy is to enable users in China to access censored pages – and despite having an entire page dedicated to giving Chinese users options for how to get around the Great Firewall, the only viable one that exists today is still using an open proxy like tor.

Please unblock this IP address, or at least put in place a soft block if that's possible. Thank you so much. —lensovet–talk – 04:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want your IP blocked, don't run a tor node. Regardless of your motivation, open proxies are a source of endless abuse. The foundation forbids the use of open proxies and so we block them on sight. — B (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
They are also the only way over a billion people can access this encyclopedia at all. If soft blocks are possible, can you give a good reason for why they can't be put in place? I'm not asking to unblock my IP; I'm asking to unblock my username, namely, lensovet. —lensovet–talk – 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, from meta,
“ The blocking of tor is unfortunately not an assault on trolls or people with a barrow to push (POV-pushers) but rather on the right to anonymity by anyone requiring it. The problem of vandalism is deeper than the band-aid approach of blocking tor users from access to Wikipedia. Instead of this blunt instrument, the types of pages that are being vandalised should be analysed and stricter measures taken against the editing and vandalism on those pages rather than a blanket ban on all tor users. ”
I didn't write that myself. Should I point you to Jimbo's POV as well? —lensovet–talk – 06:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A soft block doesn't stop the node from being used abusively. Rather, it allows abusive users to run an untraceable army of sockpuppets. --B (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Am I an abusive user? Is there any evidence of abusive users coming out of my node? The answer is no to both, and I see no need for such harsh and proactive blocks until either of these conditions actually precipitates. —lensovet–talk – 07:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it's the Foundation's policy to block open proxies from editing. However, you can still view pages. While there may not be any evidence of abusive users editing from your IP, it doesn't mean that it won't happen. As this is a foundation policy, we can't ignore it. If you want to be unblocked, I suggest you pull down your Tor node, hence closing the open proxy. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole problem with open proxies is that there wouldn't be any evidence of wrongdoing. A sockmaster could have 20 socks running on 20 open proxies and there's no way to connect them. --B (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No it's not. The policy is that nodes may be blocked. Nothing says that if a node has been found, it has to be blocked. As I've said numerous times, there has been no activity that has taken place coming out of this node that is questionable. Furthermore, only English Wikipedia has chosen to block all exit nodes; the Foundation certainly hasn't. Don't try to hide behind the foundation; this overzealous policy only happens on the English wiki, and has little factual basis. —lensovet–talk – 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you know that no questionable activity has taken place? If I was using a sock puppet via your node, you wouldn't have any idea that I was abusing socks. As long as I was "only" violating 3RR, but not being a flagrant troll, you wouldn't know. --B (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems to imply that the user running the sockpuppets has some sort of control over which node their connections go through, when in fact they don't. It's not like they could dictate which node which user went through. They could certainly try the "try it and hope it works" approach, but that's rather bogus. You also, still, haven't responded to why only the English wiki is so adamant about blocking exit nodes. —lensovet–talk – 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) English Wikipedia is the 7th or so largest website on the internet. The risk of people using it to push a POV or advertise their business is greater here than it is anywhere else. If someone is using socks on Commons or Wikisource, who cares? But here, it's a bigger issue. --B (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the fact that no one can direct which sock uses which relay, which sort of breaks down the whole "a user will use 20 relays to run 20 socks" argument. I'm also curious to see how the German wiki deals with this problem – they are the second-largest wiki, and Germany has the largest number of running tor relays in the world. Perhaps the real problem we're facing here is not some real threat but simply a lack of knowledge on the part of admins and editors due to tor's relative obscurity in the US? —lensovet–talk – 02:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} my concerns above have not been address still. —lensovet–talk – 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If your IP is hard blocked, please use {{unblock-auto}} (Yes I know this is not an autoblock but that template is also used for hardblocked IPs) to request review of your block. Please see Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information on how to get your block removed.


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ACTransit.png

Thanks for uploading Image:ACTransit.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Allnighter-511.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Allnighter-511.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hblr newlogo.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Hblr newlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? AEMoreira042281 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)