User talk:Genzparez

March 2016

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Have I Been Pwned?. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Have I Been Pwned?, you may be blocked from editing. IagoQnsi (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Have I Been Pwned?. IagoQnsi (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Have I Been Pwned?. Quit it! IagoQnsi (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

blocked from editing I have edited as appropriate thank you very much! (talk) Genzparez (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are repeatedly changing the link from the actual Have I Been Pwned? website to some sketchy other page, haveibeenpwned.org. Fair enough if you thought it was the correct link the first time, but I gave you plenty of warnings and continually reverted you and you persisted with adding the incorrect link. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No I added it as a sister/secondary site in the external links. I have now done it properly this time but you have just taken it out!

Further to this, it is NOT a sketchy site at all. I have already told you I found my own email address was in the Adobe leak and I tested it out on both the .com and .org sites. If the .org site is using the API that troy provides then people deserve to know that site is also there! Who are you to reverse external links added to it?!

Until about the 5th or 6th edit, you were just replacing the correct link with this other one, which is definitely not appropriate. You're now calling that other link a "sister site", but for me, my browser gives a security warning, and when I click through the security warning, there's just a message saying something cool will be here soon. That to me seems like a blatantly sketchy and inappropriate link. To me, it seemed like you were trying to stealthily inject your own spam link into the article.

I still don't believe you're truly trying to be constructive here; nonetheless I've un-reverted your last edit, and will leave the final call here to an admin. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay, so I just clicked the new version of the link, https://www.haveibeenpwned.org/, which doesn't give a security error and instead gives a somewhat legitimate looking site. The first six or seven times, you posted the link https://haveibeenpwned.org/ (note there's no "www."), which is the super sketchy security error page. I hope you can understand why I found that super sketchy and interpreted it as blatant vandalism.

That said, I still don't think the link should be there. The Wikipedia policy on external links is here: WP:ELOFFICIAL. It's very atypical for a random third-party website that's based on the official site to be linked. Typically, the list of external links is kept to a minimum. In addition, calling it a sister site implies that it has some level of official endorsement, which it doesn't to my understanding. In addition I just don't think it contributes any value to the articles; it's just a direct clone of the real site. -IagoQnsi (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at this [1]. Seriously? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In any case, only the official website is included in the article. This .org link does not seem to be official. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I have already been in touch with Troy Hunt about this issue because sorry I'm not having this! He is fully willing to endorse sites that make use of his API which the .org site does and therefore should be included as a secondary site. It is NOT up to you or anyone else to decide whether it should or shouldn't be there. Troy Hunt has stated on his official How's Using It? page that if an application is making use of his API but isn't on the list that he has compiled then to email him which I already have. Let me just be blunt that Troy himself can end this argument right now if necessary so please don't make me get him involved, he is a busy enough guy as it is. Grow up!

Did you even read this WP:ELOFFICIAL? Even if your site is endorsed by him, it cannot be included as long as it is not official. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok well if we're going to go down this road with the official rules etc then I simply will ask Troy if it is ok by him to include it in the references section and refer to it as a site that makes use of his API. Simple as, one or another I will have it added to this Wiki page whether you like it or not!

"I will have it added to this Wiki page whether you like it or not" I seriously hope you didn't mean that. I suggest you to read WP:CIVIL. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok you seem to have a major issue with people adding things to Wiki pages and in this case the link that I want to have added to it and by what I said do not try and quote the being civil thing. People are entitled to add things/links to Wiki pages if they're relevant. You are blocking my attempt to do this because in your opinion it isn't relevant when actually it pertains to the use of Troy Hunts HIBP API which is very relevant. I'm taking what you are doing as an attack on myself and extremely personally and if you persist with this I will take it to somebody on Wiki, an admin or mod maybe, to take this thing further. I do not like people that try to control the internet or things that I do, I have a major issue with that kind of thing purely out of principal.

Relax. No one is trying to control the internet. But Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines which need to be followed. I don't have an issue with people adding stuff to pages but I do have an issue with anyone trying to add the particular link you added (because that link is not official and Troy Hunt has not claimed that "it is official" and at this point it doesn't seem like he can control it). I have no idea where I have attacked you, but if you feel I have attacked you, please feel free to go ahead and report me. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I am an administrator, and I'm telling you clearly now: stop adding this link and stop with the incivility. Katie^talk 14:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)